Gov Brown Signs $15 CA min wage law RIP California Businesses (Oakland: unemployment rate, buyer)

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Elliott_CA

It's easy to refute Post 65. It has long been established in US law that the government has the power to override any and all private contracts if there is a strong public interest in doing so. A minimum wage accomplishes important public interests like helping reduce poverty and reducing the working poor's dependence on government assistance.

Also, if there is no minimum wage, it is too easy for the employer to coerce employees into accepting terms against their will. If the labor market is tight, an employee making $10/hr is told to accept $5/hr or get fired. The employee, fearing loss of food and shelter, reluctantly accepts. That's not a transaction between consenting parties, that's a contract under duress.

If a minimum wage reduced poverty there would be less today, not more poverty. Note; I bet the Fed and State aid they get now will still be given to them, so it won't impact that at all. Never has. Of course it won't impact either my employees or my business as I have always paid well above minimum wage. But I expect more than: "do you want fries with your order" from my employees.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by expatCA

If a minimum wage reduced poverty there would be less today, not more poverty.

Your comment doesn't make any sense, expat. The whole point of raising the MW is that it hasn't kept pace with COL.

Originally Posted by expatCA

Note; I bet the Fed and State aid they get now will still be given to them, so it won't impact that at all. Never has.

What do you base your bet on? You're just grabbing at vaporous opinion here. You don't have a lick of supporting information to make that prediction.

[bodyforlife99]

Originally Posted by Elliott_CA

Exploitation is a recognized economic concept and is divided into non-consensual exploitation (human trafficking, slavery) and consensual exploitation, where the vulnerable are taken advantage of for profit.

Whether on purpose or by a coincidental convergence of factors, corporate owners have been taking advantage of their workers:



Profits and wealth of the upper elite have grown tremendously. Workers have become increasingly productive but they not getting paid for it, as the chart shows. If there was a fair market, where workers and owners shared a level playing field, the two lines should be going up together the entire time. A higher minimum wage won't correct the problem entirely, but it is a step in the right direction.

So no answer to the comment posed to you. Got it.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by bodyforlife99

So no answer to the comment posed to you. Got it.

He answered you plain as the nose on your face. Couldn't have been more directly appropriate.

[bodyforlife99]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

He answered you plain as the nose on your face. Couldn't have been more directly appropriate.

Nope, sorry. He did nothing of the sort. And until one of you can show me a business putting the gun to the head of a prospective employee, you've got nothing. Saying his comment is an example of duress is farcical at best.

[RMESMH]

Originally Posted by DriveNotCommute

While I agree in terms of personal principle, my actual reply is only that I would have liked to universally and unreservedly agree with your statement but that the real world absolutely begs to differ.

First off and again, this is the real world. There are a lot of people who weren't raised properly in this world. So now what? Can you segregate the worthy from the unworthy? Could you even come up with a consistent and accurate standard that would not resort to any fiat? Please read this with a resigned tone, I'm basically just pointing out that people are people and the situation is what it is.

I understand what you are communicating, but the real world did exist before these programs did. One of the issues now is that people are conditioned re what they are getting, and if anything is taken away....What would happen? At some point something will have to give....changing Medicare?....raising the age to start Social Security?....servicing the National Debt will likely take a growing share of the budget as time marches on. Will we ever reach a peaceful consensus on what to do? I don't know.

Next and related, out of all of those people who weren't raised properly there are many who finally wised up as they aged and have turned a new leaf. They could be capable of more but being trapped in a crappy game that can't be won is sure to take away one's incentive to give 100%. Would you still fault them?

Yes. IMO, if they had the fortitude to change, then they have the fortitude to maintain 100% effort.

Same deal with people who were raised properly but are trapped in minimum wage jobs through circumstance. Why would they give 100% to a job that they know they can't win at?

As mentioned before, personal pride.

Would you fault this group?[

Yes. What is that saying?......Luck is when preparation meets opportunity.
One never knows who might happen to see a great attitude that rises above the attitude of others.

The biggest point: Employment is a business transaction where an employee sells his/her labor to the employer for agreed upon wages.


Just as how there are plenty of business owners who will trim corners for customers when they aren't happy with the agreed payment but felt forced to accept it, many workers will do the exact same thing for the same reasons. Right or wrong, that's just how the real world works.

Then those workers should understand that they might be eventually replaced re attitude issues.

Anyway, I seldom see people giving 100% all of the time and it's only a few who are wired that way that can really do it. I've been in workplaces with differing proportions of both types of people. 100% to me means a sprint whereas careers are more like marathons; who sprints marathons? By insisting that all people must go 100% all of the time, you're saying that the vast majority of the normal people in capability and attitude are poorly raised as well. How do we know that they aren't just smarter about pacing themselves?

IMO, it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be trying. Giving 100% could be redefined...The employer could reward suggestions on how to be more efficient...involving thinking rather than physical exertion. If you mean not making sure one gets proper nutrition, sleep, and has access to bathe...people can get pretty creative and I think most can make that work if they have to. Many things that can complicate that (granted, not all) are things the people brought upon themselves....kids they can't afford, a smoking habit, etc.

Or suppose we interpret 100% differently: Giving 100% of the labor that the employer has paid for. In which case, in the context of people trying to make a living but who cannot live well enough at those wages to work better for their employer, maybe poor service is already giving 100%.

Works if giving 100% of what the employer has paid for is also 100% of what the employer expects.

[RMESMH]

Originally Posted by BuickGS

Texas has advantages, but like anywhere it has it's problems too
Mainly traffic and home prices climbing. Homes are cheaper here, but taxes and insurance are not.

Property tax and insurance RATES are not, but since the amount one is likely to spend on a similar home is MUCH LEES, the overall dollar amount spent for property taxes and insurance is likely less.

[RMESMH]

Originally Posted by Elliott_CA

Exploitation is a recognized economic concept and is divided into non-consensual exploitation (human trafficking, slavery) and consensual exploitation, where the vulnerable are taken advantage of for profit.

Whether on purpose or by a coincidental convergence of factors, corporate owners have been taking advantage of their workers:



Profits and wealth of the upper elite have grown tremendously. Workers have become increasingly productive but they not getting paid for it, as the chart shows. If there was a fair market, where workers and owners shared a level playing field, the two lines should be going up together the entire time. A higher minimum wage won't correct the problem entirely, but it is a step in the right direction.

The risks aren't the same. The business owners are risking loss of capital. They could lose it all. The employee risks losing a paycheck....which might be bad, might be good...depending on skills, circumstances. Since the risks aren't the same, why should the employer be forced to share the gains?...especially cow towing to what people in government (who have probably never run a business) might deem sufficient. I'm sure someone can throw out "The paycheck is ALL he or she has". That isn't an issue that the employer should be expected to try to solve via the 'jack booted thug' of government policy coming down upon him or her and forcing the issue.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by RMESMH

The risks aren't the same. The business owners are risking loss of capital. They could lose it all. The employee risks losing a paycheck....which might be bad, might be good...depending on skills, circumstances. Since the risks aren't the same, why should the employer be forced to share the gains?...especially cow towing to what people in government (who have probably never run a business) might deem sufficient. I'm sure someone can throw out "The paycheck is ALL he or she has". That isn't an issue that the employer should be expected to try to solve via the 'jack booted thug' of government policy coming down upon him or her and forcing the issue.

Yes this is key.
Also if an employee is laid off they will be able to collect unemployment.
The business owner if they lose their "job"/business gets nothing but debt.

An interesting thing I heard about is the plans of the Korean Clothing Manufacturers in L.A to move to El Paso. Last year they were already worried about $10 minimum wage...I would think with $15hr this will motivate them more to move
I'm sure a lot of people will say , "Well big deal...let them go to Texas...who cares...we don't need businesses like them here!"
I'm sure a lot of people said the same thing all across the country before various manufacturers moved out of town due to an anti business climate.

"Texas, which has no state income tax, has a minimum wage of $7.25.

The jobber markets have faced toughening conditions in Los Angeles in recent years, with tighter labor enforcement, a state minimum wage set to rise to $10 an hour next year"
Link: El Paso move becoming reality for Korean American apparel industry – The Korea Times

Just like individual employees that seek out better opportunities for them and their families by moving for a job...businesses can also move. There seems to be a misconception that a business can't move. Sure it's harder to move a business versus a job in general..but businesses move all the time.

I am against the belief that government should determine wages. Also against government determining what a property owner can charge in rent.

[DriveNotCommute]

Originally Posted by RMESMH

I understand what you are communicating, but the real world did exist before these programs did. One of the issues now is that people are conditioned re what they are getting, and if anything is taken away....What would happen? At some point something will have to give....changing Medicare?....raising the age to start Social Security?....servicing the National Debt will likely take a growing share of the budget as time marches on. Will we ever reach a peaceful consensus on what to do? I don't know.

We probably have a number of differences in our base assumptions. If I were to summarize to the point of over-simplification, based on your full reply it feels like you want to put all of the responsibility on the employees but none on employers. This last line most strongly shapes that impression:

Originally Posted by RMESMH

Works if giving 100% of what the employer has paid for is also 100% of what the employer expects.

In a discussion where we're talking about slacker employees [let's say worst of the worst] then I think anyone would agree that you are correct, no debate there. But there's going to be disagreement over the employees who are better than that though. I think your post also reflects the assumption that all employers/managers are going to be people who do no wrong. If employees have a work ethic that you expect them to adhere to, what is the equivalent for employers? Or maybe it was just the wording was too absolute or that you felt that there's no need to state the obvious?

Work is a business contract after all so both sides should have a number of equivalencies. Just to check again on our base assumptions, are you assuming that jobs paying minimum wage are simple enough that we should simply assign an equally simple relationship between worker and employer? I can get behind that under some conditions but think things are complicated enough under today's economy that it won't apply in quite a lot of situations. It would be those complicated cases that would be worth thinking about and discussing.

Changing gears and flipping the perspective from employee to employer, raising the minimum wage across the board protects decent employees from the lower percentages of the worst employers [doesn't matter if they're deliberately scumbags or simply incompetent, results for employees are the same]. But I think it's worth noting that it could also drag the uppermost percentage of good employers into problems they didn't deserve.