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."
Australia has a minimum wage of around $17USD/hour (around $20AUD) which increases 20% if you are a casual. Our poor people do well.
You know how everyone whines about big corporates making too much money; well this is the best way to redistribute that wealth.
Paying your poor people well, helps lift them out of poverty.
46137
> We're trying to optimize something in a very complex system
Yes! You're starting out well.
> If I'm running a business, and my payroll increases 30% while sales remain flat, I have two options: 1) slow or stop hiring, cut staff, or even go out of business;
Aaaaand... you crashed into the water. Raising wages increases productivity, demonstrably so: http://www.raisetheminimumwage...
Of course, as said, this only 'works' if the wage was abysmally low to begin with (which is true in this case). If you're already paying your workers $100/hr, paying them $200/hr is likely not to do much, but going from $5/hr to $10/hr is going to do a lot.
There are many reasons for this. Low-paid workers often lose productivity due to working multiple jobs or making non-optimal life decisions to save money. Employee theft and misbehavior goes down. Job satisfaction (and the resulting increase in productivity) goes up. There are a lot of other positive effects.
> I think it will largely end up being a feel-good measure that well-off, well-meaning people can use to congratulate themselves about
I actually agree with you a little bit here. But that's life.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
In my experience, the biggest asshole bosses are in tech. Ditto for the customers.
High blood pressure, burn-out, and ageism in tech mean you've got to really enjoy what you do ... but ask anyone who got out of the rat hole how they feel a few years later. At a certain point, quality of life becomes more important than having more of what George Carlin accurately called "sh*t."
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
We are not a manufacturing economy anymore. Yes we do manufacture things still, but we are predominately a services economy now. This is a critical point most people do not understand.
Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
See, "monopsony"
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/mon...
You are welcome on my lawn.
While you're at it, also explain why businesses would pay $15/h for a worker who doesn't increase revenue by significantly more than $15 for each hour he works.
Work is fungible. Perhaps you had said worker hammering roofing nails manually and after the wage increase you decide to buy a nail gun to increase their productivity. In fact historically union shops have lead the way in increases in productivity for exactly this reason. This is well documented.
Meanwhile, tax avoidance is rife in the corporate world - which leads to much less tax revenue for Governments, which leads to a degradation of society and loss of services that benefit society.
Can't blame people for avoiding paying taxes if they don't have to. Did you buy a home instead of renting? Shame on you for getting that mortgage interest deduction? Have kids? Shame on you for getting deductions for your kids.
I could get a lot more worked up about how much more money we could get out of businesses, except for one fact, and that is that the government collects 30 times as much in taxes in CONSTANT DOLLARS as they did in 1940. Now granted, the population is 3 times as high as it was in 1940, so I could see why the feds would need 3 times the taxes (minus some amount for economies of scale of course). But there is just no room in my imagination for why they would need 30 times as much taxes to support 3 times the population and somehow manage to also run a deficit. 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? These are constant dollars people. The actual dollar figure in 1940 was $9.5 billion, less than 1/300th of what we spend now on triple the population.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
What happens to those who were making $15/hr or $16/hr? They're likely frequenting places full of minimum wage workers and their costs will now rise - inevitably - to at least some degree because of this. Further, they've all now been reduced to minimum wage (or close thereto) by the stroke of a pen.
Beyond that, how many jobs will now cost enough that automating them starts to make good financial sense? How many people with little to no skills - especially those without a good education who are most in need of steady legal employment - will find that their lack of marketable skills make them not worth hiring at this higher price point?
This is the kind of feel-good thing that bring down the middle class, raises some in the lower class (those lucky enough to ride the wave), and leaves behind large swaths of the most vulnerable people. What's going to happen is that people with little to no marketable skills in surrounding areas will get hired at the state or Federal minimum wage, gain some valuable experience, become more valuable employees, and then move or commute into LA to take jobs from poor, undereducated residents. This is an anti-poor measure masquerading as a hand-up. It will drive the middle class further down the chain (by negatively impacting their purchasing power), reduce the number of available jobs for everyone (and especially for residents), and drive many of the poor right into the ground.
Mark my words, within 5 years of this taking effect, all or nearly all indicators of poverty will worsen in LA.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
(While you're at it, also explain why businesses would pay $15/h for a worker who doesn't increase revenue by significantly more than $15 for each hour he works.)
If your business requires paying wages that are so low that your workers can't make a living and to survive are still welfare and foodstamps (that my tax dollars pay for) despite working full time then your business plan is broken.
Or in many cases, the worker does increase the company's revenue by by more than $15 for each hour he/she works but they pay them less and pocket the difference (e.g. Walmart and other big box stores) and by paying lower wages and making other taxpayers make up the difference the owners of the company just get richer. That's why the Walton family has more wealth than 40% of Americans combined (that's 129 MILLION Americans). We're talking about a company whose executives take separate private jets to the same meeting just for fun to see who can get there faster. A company whose chairman (Sam Walton's oldest son) is only in the office a few times a month, and spends the rest of his time taking his private jet from his home in the Colorado mountains to go cycling in France, or hunting geese in Canada, or bio-safaris in South America, yet pays his workers so little that even though they work full time they can't afford rent and food. Are you still going to tell me that company can't afford to pay its workers a wage they can live off of?
In a sense, minimum wage is just a best effort to re-balance the market distortion introduced by the social safety net. Were there no net, people being paid less than it costs to live would be forced to quit either because their health would decline from the privation or because they would be too busy dealing drugs and robbing people to show up for work. Then wages would go up to bring people in who won't quit, go to jail, or die or the business would fold up and go away.
Since we find high crime, shanty towns, and riots undesirable, we introduced the social safety net. A side effect is that it becomes possible to capture people in a situation where they are paid less than it costs to live and the taxpayers get stuck for the rest. The minimum wage seeks to patch that up to the extent possible.
The sad reality is that people were forced to accept minimum wage jobs in the big crash and many are still stuck there because Wall Street recovered a hell of a lot faster than Main Street.
There aren't that many high paying wage or wage that pay above 15$ an hour and there is already a fierce competition for them.
Companies cannot find enough people with even modest intellectual skills to hire (and retain) for even modestly skilled jobs with much better than minimum wages paid. Hell, there are landscaping companies around here who will pay $20/hour for anyone that will consistently show up to shovel. Costco hires even the most basic, unskilled shelf-stackers for well above minimum wage (closer to $19).
Are you one of those which think the poor are lazy ?
Actually, in many cases that's exactly the problem. But kids born in to families where doing the work needed to become a decent high school graduate is considered unimportant or too much trouble have lazy parents to thank for that - the kids themselves usually don't know better until it's already too late to form decent habits.
You need money for a proper education
No, no you don't. The taxpayers around you will pay for your education through high school. And if you've don't anything even close to working hard, you'll have the academic background needed to get anything from substantial subsidies to full scholarships in higher education. I worked while in college, to have money. Did you?
Frankly your kind of thought are so short sighted , you should get glasses for your brain.
You have no idea where prosperity comes from, apparently.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It would be a shame if one was allowed to earn a living?
I don't know if that is true or not. Since I moved to Southern California, it has occurred to me that if I had a kid, I don't know what kind of menial summer job they could get. The things I used to do are just not options for a kid here. Cut grass? That is already dominated by day laborers and professional get ups. Flip burgers? I do see some younger people doing that but it appears to be far more dominated by adults than where I grew up. Paper delivery routes are done by adults. Hell even picking up dog poop is a job for the career man out here. There does not seem to be much left for a young teenager.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.