I'm in love with Californian state laws! Do you agree? (Nice: sales, layoffs)

[DougStark]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

What do you know about California issues, you claim to live in Phoenix

I used to live there.

[DougStark]

Originally Posted by TexasUsuck

The more I study California state laws the more awe I have. Laws from rules for privacy of job applicants. Marijuana laws like proposition 215 and AB266. 2016 state voter referendum for legislation of marijuana. Equal opportunity and hate crime laws for LGBT. City laws like a living wage of $15 an hour in Los Angeles and San Francisco. I could go on and on. What laws do you like?

If employees of CA don't like living on low wages, they should MOVE. There are a lot less expensive places to live than CA. it's called the law of "supply and demand", Economics 101.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by DougStark

If employees of CA don't like living on low wages, they should MOVE. There are a lot less expensive places to live than CA. it's called the law of "supply and demand", Economics 101.

thanks but no thanks, I lived in one of those places and moved back to California as soon as I could.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by DougStark

I know, let's charge every homeowner in the State of CA Mellow-Roos taxes. After all, it only seems fair. Then they'll know how it feels to pay these taxes.

Just because homeowners bought their houses before the stupid Mellow-Roos taxes were enacted shouldn't exempt them from these taxes. But, liberals and NIMBYs who don't want any new development, created this dumb tax to slow down residential building.

What a messed up. bureaucratic State CA is.

It's mello-roos. Mellow-roos sounds like a variety of marijuana

[Ultrarunner]

I don't have issue with Mello-Roos...

It is for a fixed term and then it is paid.

It is fully disclosed prior to purchase under State Law.

Anyone can avoid by avoiding communities with active Mello-Roos

I do not know anyone in my circle of friends that is subject to it... most live in Oakland CA and other nearby areas and just about all of us live in homes built in the 1950's or older...

Those that desire the modern subdivision communities with new streets, schools, parks, firehouse, etc... most likely realize Mello-Roos will be part of their tax bill for decades.

It is easy to avoid... simply buy an older home in an older area and presto...

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

I don't have issue with Mello-Roos...
Anyone can avoid by avoiding communities with active Mello-Roos

I do not know anyone in my circle of friends that is subject to it... most live in Oakland CA and other nearby areas and just about all of us live in homes built in the 1950's or older...
.

Amazing how that works, huh? When we were house shopping we told the realtor no HOA's no mello-roos, he said "no problem" we ended up buying a house in suburban sac county that was built in 1954. Our tax rate 1% plus some infinitesimal percentage caused by less than $100 in annual assessments

[TexasUsuck]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

It's mello-roos. Mellow-roos sounds like a variety of marijuana

I think my first strain of marijuana I grow in California will be called Mellow-roos!

THANKS MAN!

[Slowpoke_TX]

Originally Posted by Elliott_CA

I agree, except it really should be a national or state minimum wage of $15/hr. There's an easy way to tell if wages are too low: when full time employees qualify for EBT cards, housing vouchers or other government assistance, wages are too low. It doesn't make sense for a business to pay $10/hr and then the taxpayer has to kick in another $5/hr just so the wage earner can have basic food and shelter. SNAP/EBT costs the U.S. $75 bil per year. If the minimum wage was raised high enough so workers don't qualify, the taxpayer would save billions.

Elliott, you're forgetting (or perhaps overlooking) the fact that an increase in payroll means that businesses have to offset the added labor cost by raising the price of goods sold / services rendered.

In addition to that, the line of thinking in your paragraph is based upon several assumptions, namely that the qualifications for public assistance are set correctly, and that consumer goods are at the correct price levels. I think consumer goods are too costly, and would like to see prices come down. Reducing overhead via reduced cost of compliance will cause prices to go down, and/or payroll to go up. Either way, it's a win/win.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by TexasUsuck

I think my first strain of marijuana I grow in California will be called Mellow-roos!

THANKS MAN!

Anytime!

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX

Elliott, you're forgetting (or perhaps overlooking) the fact that an increase in payroll means that businesses have to offset the added labor cost by raising the price of goods sold / services rendered.

In addition to that, the line of thinking in your paragraph is based upon several assumptions, namely that the qualifications for public assistance are set correctly, and that consumer goods are at the correct price levels. I think consumer goods are too costly, and would like to see prices come down. Reducing overhead via reduced cost of compliance will cause prices to go down, and/or payroll to go up. Either way, it's a win/win.

You can't make assumptions that prices would go down if wages remain the same either, in fact there is ample evidence from looking at wages for the last 5 years that they don't go down unless there is pressure from competition, why would they? And wage increases do not drive up the cost of goods by very much at all.. Fast food is sold for as much as consumers will pay and still attract customers. The price frequently has little bearing on the cost of producing it.

The labor component of the cost of fast food is around 25% I cringe when people claim that a wage increase will result in the price of a hamburger from $2 to $5. It's been projected that raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour would increase costs 2.7% This Is What Would Happen If Fast-Food Workers Got Raises - Businessweek

As far as determining whether qualifications for public assistance are set correctly, I'm not quite sure what you mean. To get cash assistance the assumption is you have no other income, with even minimal income cash assistance is reduced to zero or very close to it. As far as SNAP benefits, or Medicaid, I think that any public benefits received by a full time employee should be charged back to the company they work for. I really dislike footing the bill for greedy employers.