U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 30, 2014 04:07 PM UTC
21 Comments
This is what Moderatus has been explaining to us for so long. Why couldn't we just have listened ? (insert hyperbolic figure here) of jobs !!!
The big numbers are clearly a load based on a report last year in the DP: Jobs in Colorado's oil and gas fields swell to nearly 30,000 The study of 2012 numbers found that the sector employed 51,000 total statewide. Since that number includes folks like gas station attendents and even O&G folks not involved in fracking, we can assume that not everyone in the sector would be affected.
To get to halfa million impacted, you'd have to explain how more than 9 times as many ancilliary jobs as are in the entire sector would be lost.
Still a tad shy of hundreds of thousands. Sadly, it should no longer surprise anyone that they just make this stuff up.
The CBO estimated it would cost 50,000 jobs nationwide. That translates to between 5,000 and 10,000 jobs in Colorado. Udall thinks it would be a good thing to have 5,000 to 10,000 more folks in Colorado unemployed?
You're suggesting that Colorado is going to suffer between 10%-20% of the brunt of the entire CBO-projected losses when our total, non-farm labor pool is less than 2% of the US pool? (1,972,27 Colorado v. 1,113,425,965 US)
That's 1,972,271 employed in CO v. 113,425,965 nationally. My math tells me that's 1.74%. Evenly distributed across the US labor pool, that would indicate a number of 869 for Colorado. Not 5,000. Not 10,000. 869.
I left off a zero. The CBO estimates a loss of 500,000 jobs, making the number 8,690, which is between 5,000 and 10,000.
really? that's how you do math.
The CBO estimate was a loss of 500,000 jobs, not 50,000 jobs.
…and I'm going to take the bet that this projected 'loss of jobs' will end up being about as real as all of the jobs we were going to lose in Colorado when we reformed the Payday Loan industry? Do you remember the shrill cries from the Colorado Republicans about this 'job killing move by the Democrats'? In case you missed the committee hearings and floor debate, there was a LOT of drama.
You'll be shocked to know that none of those outcomes came to fruition. In fact, it's estimated the reform has kept an additional $40 million in the pockets of wage earners who are the least amongst us. And the jobs? While there are fewer stores, the ones that remained are larger with more employees.
My point? Even if the overall employment in that sector went down, the overall economic effect was more than offset by the increase in disposable income to the affected wage-earners.
An increase in the national minimum wage will play out no differently than the Payday Loan reform played out at a state level. The overall effect will be a positive one.
Michael, If you actually believe that, why not raise the rate to $20 per hour?
Seriously, Andrew, those straw man arguments are beneath even you. Even though, as you well know, had the minimum wage kept up with inflation, it would be in the $20+ range today. The $10.10 is a reasonable compromise to get us back on the path of putting some equity in that system. And here I am, arguing with a troll who would rather there be no minimum at all…
I don't know, Micheal. From what I have seen it really is that stupid.
And yet, these trolls have no problem with the most authentic Welfare Queens of them all, Wal-mart and McDonalds. You wonder what kind of personality one has to possess to be able to get up in the morning and look at yourself in the mirror? This shameless promotion on behalf of the oligarchs takes a very special breed of human being.
I'mslightly amazed and amused at how trustworthy the CBO has gotten.Whenever they announced that the negative impacts from the PPACA would not be as severe as wingnuts had been squealing their reports were not to be listened to because of their innaccuracy and the geneal unreliability of their data.Now however the wingnuts have decided the CBO is a virtual paragon of accuracy and trustworthiness. I beleive this tells you a lot more about wingnuts than about the CBO.
I don't get it. do the righties not understand that the economy is still draging ass because the largest part of it, consumer spending, is in the pits? The wealthiest save or invest the lion's share of their income, while those who earn the least spend the greatest share of their income on STUFF! Even if "stuff" is only food and clothing, the poorest people have little choice but to spend it as fast as they earn it. But if you can't make rent, you'll have to do without everything else. If the struggling underclass can't afford basics on their income, the middle-class don't profit from their spending and they have less to spend on luxuries which hurts the upper-class who own the big chains. Trickle-down is a myth.Weath trickles up.
Sorry to have to tell you, Pols, but there is no such number as "a gajillion"…it's gazillion…with a "Z".
@Duke—No matter which way you spell it–there is still no such number. LOL!
And a question to all: Having been a farm boy in another life—I have yet to figure out why farm workers are NOT allowed to have a minimum wage—WHY? Many hired hands work 16/18 hours a day, (especially during harvest), and still get just a set amount.
The average farmer in the United States is worth well over a Million Dollars, (that included the land he/she owns, federal subsidies, sales of crops, equipment, etc.) and nobody will answer that question.
The agricultural lobby in the U.S. congress.
Call it the 'Ghosts of Cliven Bundy' lobby. They're still mad they can't get their labor for 'free'.
Well, yeah, I do suppose that IS the reason.
Just like the National Western Stock show refuses to pay overtime for the workers during the show because "it is an agricultural event".
And many of those they refuse to pay are employed year round who ARE paid overtime during the rest of the year.