Slashdot Mirror
Los Angeles Raises Minimum Wage To $15 an Hour
HughPickens.com writes: Jennifer Medina reports at the NY Times that the council of the nation's second-largest city voted by a 14-1 margin to increase its minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2020. Los Angeles and its almost 4 million residents represent one of the biggest victories yet for those pushing wage increases across the country. Proponents hope it will start to reverse the earning gap in the city, where the top 7% of households earn more than the bottom 67%.
Detractors point out the direct cost increase to businesses, which could total as much as a billion dollars per year. If a business can't handle the increased cost, the employees this measure was designed to help will lose their jobs when it folds. An editorial from the LA Times says it's vital for other cities nearby to increase their minimum wage, too, else businesses will gradually migrate to cheaper locations. They add, "While the minimum wage hike will certainly help the lowest-wage workers in the city, it should not be seen as the centerpiece of a meaningful jobs creation strategy. The fact is that far too many jobs in the city are low-wage jobs — some 37% of workers currently earn less than $13.25 an hour, according to the mayor's estimates — and even after the proposed increase, they would still be living on the edge of poverty."
Detractors point out the direct cost increase to businesses, which could total as much as a billion dollars per year. If a business can't handle the increased cost, the employees this measure was designed to help will lose their jobs when it folds. An editorial from the LA Times says it's vital for other cities nearby to increase their minimum wage, too, else businesses will gradually migrate to cheaper locations. They add, "While the minimum wage hike will certainly help the lowest-wage workers in the city, it should not be seen as the centerpiece of a meaningful jobs creation strategy. The fact is that far too many jobs in the city are low-wage jobs — some 37% of workers currently earn less than $13.25 an hour, according to the mayor's estimates — and even after the proposed increase, they would still be living on the edge of poverty."
Except that there's other factors in play as well. A minimum wage increase will give the bottom 60+% of workers more spending power, this increased spending will boost the income of local shops which will help to improve the local economy.
This is economics 101, for an economy to work people have to spend money, the more money that people spend the better the economy works. Increasing the spending power of the vast majority of local residents is a very good thing for the local economy.
Windows is a bonfire, Linux is the sun. Linux only looks smaller if you lack perspective.
And the poor are more likely to put pretty much all their income back into the economy in their day-to-day living, whereas the rich don't.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
It can be, but it doesn't necessarily have to. Probably the key aspect is whether it's merely a supplement, or something that is enough to live on by itself. As things currently are, people need to work to survive (at least in the USA). For the sake of argument, let's say there was a program that gave everyone enough to pay for essentials (basic food, basic housing, minor entertainment) - in that scenario, no one has to work, so they can easily tell businesses that don't want to pay them enough for their time to shove it. In such a scenario, you could freely do away with minimum wage laws, because everyone would be free to set the value of their time, in ways they can't possibly do now.
There have historically been two problems for achieving this, that are somewhat intertwined. One, where does the money come from, and two, what happens if too many people decide not to work. As technology advances though, both of these are going to become increasingly solvable as we replace human labor with automation/robotics as the primary source of production. Put another way, if robots do all the work, we're not worried that any number of humans aren't working, because the small number we need will be easily found in those who find it rewarding. As for how you pay for it, you take a portion of the money that each robot's activity earns, and use that to pay everyone, since we'll need people who can buy what the robots make. Market economies require demand as well as supply, after all.
True.
But you also have a entry level wage for teenagers do you not. IIRC, this is about 10-12$/hr.
Additionally, you also have some of the strictest immigration policies in the world. You can afford 17/hr when you don't have to worry about millions of people coming over your southern border who don't have much of an education and skills. (along with the government on your southern border is encouraging them to migrate so they don't have to take care of them).
You know, when that story aired on Fox News, some people have actually went and asked the owners of those closing restaurants whether it's due to the minimum wage. And they have only found one place where that was a factor - and even that one has, ironically, not been in the original report.
At the same time, several new restaurants have opened, or are still planning to open, in the same timeframe.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ri...
If you're flipping burgers in high school, or even while you're in your 20s going to college, you're doing the right thing. Just about every successful person I know started out doing menial jobs at a young age. Bonus points if you pay extra attention to how your boss does his/her job while you're doing yours.
So the mistake your side makes is misunderstanding that at every incremental raise of the min wage, jobs are lost. It doesn't matter that workers have more money to spend, unless that increase in volume leads to inflation of prices, this resulting in Sally's output being worth $14+ from inflation. But your side insists min wage increases do not cause inflation and only lead to higher demand (volume). If volume demanded increases without inflation, that actually has no impact because Sally's company will not produce more units at negative margin. In fact Sally's company will produce less than before the increase in demand.
And if it does lead to inflation, Sally may not get canned, but that is a regressive cost that will hurt many lower wage workers and definitely the unemployed, whose benefits are not indexed to local inflation.
http://www.seattletimes.com/se...
http://www.cepr.net/blogs/cepr...
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
the government collects 30 times as much in taxes in CONSTANT DOLLARS as they did in 1940
Bullshit the inflation from 1940 is already ~15 times. In fact looking at your next sentences:
Now, they ran a deficit in 1940 as well, but let's think about this for a minute. If $135 Billion in 1940 would have been enough to make ends meet, then how come with three times the population now, it takes $3.2 trillion?
Because 135 billion alone in 1940 is 2.2 trillion to 2.3 trillion of today in constant dollar. Any CPI calculator will confirm that baring a few % +/-. The delta of 900 million is from federal programs which did NOT exists in 1940. From environmental protection, drug enforcement, NASA, EPA, etc...etc...
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The ignorance of this one is strong.
Sorry bud, but the Unions had literally zero to do with Hostess problems.
1) Hostess had been on the verge of bankruptcy multiple times prior to them going under.
2) More importantly, the Unions had already taken multiple paycuts to keep the company afloat.
It wasn't till the management asked for another paycut and got it only to vote themselves a 300% pay RAISE that the Unions refused another paycut as the management had shown their hand and their intentions of just bleeding the company dry instead of working to keep it going.
Hostess Unions actually helped that company, it was systemic failure of management over the course of years over years that killed Hostess.
Canada pay an average of about half as much in taxes (scaled to their income), for the same quality and the same service.
From what I've heard about medicine in Canada from locals, this is laughably untrue. Only someone who has never had more than a minor boo-boo could claim the service is the same.
You are completely wrong.
I've talked to doctors and patients who have experienced both the Canadian and US systems, and I've read the literature comparing outcomes for different procedures in the two systems. http://www.openmedicine.ca/art... I read Canadian medical studies every week or two.
If I had a heart attack in front of the University of Toronto medical school, I would be confident that my survival and other outcomes would be just as good as they would be in front of the New York University medical center in New York. At one time, the breast cancer outcomes were slightly better in the US than in Canada, because the US was aggressively diagnosing and treating (sometimes overdiagnosing and overtreating) breast cancer, but by now the Canadians have adopted everything useful that the US was doing. OTOH, the Canadian outcomes for childhood leukemia were slightly better. The Canadian outcomes for diabetes were much better, with better control, fewer amputations, etc.
Gordon Guyatt, a professor at McMaster University, basically invented evidence-based medicine, which is the practice of making medical decisions based on the statistically valid scientific evidence, rather than prescribing drugs because the drug companies are giving you a free trip to Hawaii if you meet their quota.
It is true that American doctors are more aggressive about treatment, and will give you a quick appointment if they have slots available and you have good insurance. OTOH American doctors are more likely to treat patients unnecessarily. An American pulmonologist is more likely to see a spot on your x-ray and give you a lung biopsy. Lung biopsies have a fatality rate of about 1/1,000, and most of them are unnecessary. But in Canada, when you have a life-threatening condition and need a CAT scan immediately, they put you on top of the list and give you a CAT scan the same day.
OTOH if you don't have health insurance in the US, your access to health care in many states is nonexistent, and hospitals in Texas for example will kick cancer patients out in the street if they can't pay. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB... There were several studies published in American medical journals in which researchers called doctors' offices, described the symptoms of a life-threatening condition, told them that they were on Medicare or Medicaid, and asked for an appointment. Depending on the studies, about half the doctors refused Medicare and three-quarters refused Medicaid.
The evidence is overwhelming that Canadian health care equals the US system in quality and service, and costs about half as much. Of course if you decide things on the basis of ideology http://www.newyorker.com/news/... rather than evidence you may not be convinced.