A new study by Greenline Insights has revealed that if passed, Washington’s Initiative 2117 could result in the loss of approximately 45,000 high-wage jobs and $9.1 billion in economic output over the next eight years. The initiative, which has sparked significant opposition, would cut funding for vital projects in transportation, renewable energy, and environmental restoration.
The study shows that Washington’s construction sector would bear the brunt of these job losses, followed closely by workers in the transportation, agriculture, fish, and forestry industries. Many of these roles are critical to the state’s economy, particularly the construction industry, which employs thousands in high-wage jobs.
“This is one more reason why Washington workers cannot afford the devastating impacts of Initiative 2117,” said Erin Frasier, Assistant Executive Secretary of the Washington State Building and Construction Trades Council. “I-2117 would cost tens of thousands of high-wage jobs in building and construction trades. This deceptive initiative hurts workers and hurts our economy.”
In addition to impacting jobs, the study highlights the potential fallout from cuts to infrastructure and environmental projects. If I-2117 is enacted, advocates say that it could disrupt billions of dollars of investments in essential projects. These include funding for road and bridge maintenance, wildfire prevention, salmon recovery, and efforts to modernize Washington’s energy grid.
Billy Wallace, Political and Legislative Director of the Washington and Northern Idaho District Council of Laborers, emphasized the risks to infrastructure.
“Roads and bridges across Washington state are in desperate need of repair. I-2117 not only guts funding for that maintenance, it also slashes the tens of thousands of jobs needed to actually get the work done. These are family-wage jobs that provide health care and pensions, and they are critical for workers and a strong economy.”
The jobs at risk, according to the Greenline Insights report, offer an average annual compensation of $91,000, which is 9% higher than the state’s median income. Sectors such as public transit, agriculture, clean energy, and Washington’s ferry system are all projected to be negatively impacted by I-2117.
Rachel Smith, President and CEO of the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, expressed concern about the long-term economic ramifications.
“Now is a time to be generating economic activity, not inhibiting it,” said Smith. “A healthy economy needs a strong workforce and a connected, safe, and reliable statewide transportation system. But Initiative 2117’s impact is all about cuts: Cuts to transportation, cuts to environmental protections, and cuts to high-skilled, high-wage jobs—jobs that our employers rely on. That’s why we, representing 2,500 employers, are urging people to vote no. I-2117 is a bad deal for Washington.”
Critics of I-2117 argue that the initiative would not only jeopardize jobs but also stifle the state’s progress toward a sustainable, clean energy economy. Proponents of green energy have emphasized that the jobs at risk are critical for Washington’s efforts to combat climate change.
“Initiative 2117 slashes investment in the kind of sustainable, high-quality jobs we need to power our workforce now and into the future,” said Cassie Bordelon, Executive Director of Climate Jobs WA. “I-2117 will devastate our ability to advance the clean energy economy and will hurt working people first and foremost. Climate Jobs WA calls on voters to reject I-2117 this fall.”
Opponents of I-2117 continue to raise concerns over the broader economic and environmental implications. They argue that the initiative would undercut the state’s ability to fund critical projects, thus hindering Washington’s economic growth while also stalling progress toward environmental sustainability.
With the election approaching, the debate over Initiative 2117 is heating up, as voters weigh the potential costs to jobs and economic output against the purported benefits. The decision could have far-reaching consequences for Washington’s economy, workforce, and environmental future.