U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 01-24-2013, 04:16 PM
 
Location: State of Relaxation
31,708 posts, read 17,263,464 times
Reputation: 21750
With rents going up everywhere in the Bay Area, I would think the minimum wage would have to increase, just so people could keep up with the rent increases, whether they live in SF or not.

Santa Fe, where I'm currently living, passed their $10 minimum wage a couple of years ago (it's now gone through one scheduled increase). I know of one restaurant that closed as a result, but it was a poorly-run business. If the owner had had a more hands-on approach, he easily could have increased business, and the improved revenue would have buoyed him through the new minimum wage. What effect the new wage has had on the hotel industry, I don't know, but no hotels have closed, and Santa Fe has a huge tourism business.

The one effect of a jump in minimum wage that doesn't get discussed much, is what the increase for unskilled staff does to the wages of those above them; the supervisors, and high-ups. If they were getting $10/hr. or $12/hr. when the minimum was $7.50, and suddenly the minimum jumps to $10+, then it creates a domino effect, where management has to raise everyone's salary, or else the supervisors, or sous-chefs, etc. would be making the same or little more than the unskilled workers. This domino effect is often overlooked in discussions of significant minimum-wage adjustments.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-24-2013, 04:27 PM
Status: "Embrace the uncertainty of Liberty" (set 21 days ago)
 
Location: SF Bay Area
6,381 posts, read 1,812,451 times
Reputation: 2333
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdumbgod View Post
As has been alluded to, how is it that the growing prevalence of so many techies, finance flackies and executives getting ridiculous salaries, bonuses, pensions, and golden parachutes for very questionable 'output' does not add to the costs of living while Pablo rolling burritos in SOMA sinks the state economy by getting another buck and a half per hour?
Just can't stop worshipping the rich, and can't stop stomping on working people, can we? And we wonder why the gap between the 1% and the rest races out of control.
And who determines just what is allowed to be designated as an acceptable income? If all you can get is a low-wage job, that's what has to pay the bills. Doesn't necessarily mean someone is too lazy to go to Berkeley or Stanford, or become the next Steve Jobs. Means they're working their ass off just to make ends meet, while the indignant blithely wag fingers from their couches and keyboards.
Kind of like pointing at the guy in the wheelchair and commanding, "You're just not trying hard enough! Get up! Stop just sitting there and being lazy!"
The difference is those making the 6 figure salaries are earning the money because someone with more money thinks they provide a skill that is worth the compensation that they are giving them. The people making minimum wage make the money they do because the government mandates it. Higher minimum wage leads to higher unemployment and inflates the cost of products that everyone purchases.

You don't have to come from wealth or attend Stanford to make it in this world. Lord knows this country is filled with individuals that started out with little and became a success. Each individual needs to determine what they believe is acceptable level of income for them and make the appropriate decisions in their lives to achieve that goal. The safety nets went from being used to provide for the truly down trodden to now being a way of life for many.

I have worked crappy low paying jobs while I was younger, sometimes as many as 3 at a time. These jobs were very low skill and should be paid as such; the market will dictate the value of the work. You should be encouraged to increase their value to earn more money not earn more money because the government determines your value.
Equating this to someone who has an actual physical/mental impairment is silly and a very disingenuous example.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2013, 05:57 PM
Status: "California Uber Alles!" (set 7 days ago)
 
Location: San Jose, CA
7,472 posts, read 6,355,909 times
Reputation: 4505
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
Equating this to someone who has an actual physical/mental impairment is silly and a very disingenuous example.
No it's not.

How about a socioeconomic impairment? As in, does the kid from East Palo Alto really start from an equal playing field as the kid from Palo Alto? The prevailing attitude is "Well, that's just too bad, life's not fair."

Lots of real barriers to success out there, as we know all to well in my business: We work to obtain employment for adults with disabilities, and help them keep their jobs, but their barriers don't necessarily dwarf the struggles of those who face other challenges like racism, sexism, elitism, poverty, domestic violence, etc. But these days, we choose to deny the very existence of these, likely out of expediency, also out of the ease of barking about it on the internet in the hopes of finding approval.

Meanwhile, rich people bribe other rich people to sit in large chairs, who make their money disappear into mystery accounts elsewhere, and ship jobs overseas. Wealth and purchasing power handed on a silver plate halfway around the world, further impoverishing one's own country/municipality and strangely getting bonuses and bailouts for doing so, which only encourages more of the same.
Not really the "market" doing this; it's the cabal of rich guys/princes/corporations that control all this. Not really "free" at all.

Last edited by bigdumbgod; 01-24-2013 at 06:06 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2013, 07:20 PM
 
Location: East of Seattle, originally from SF Bay Area
14,068 posts, read 16,413,594 times
Reputation: 9470
That's not a LIVING wage in Seattle, never mind San Francisco with the state income tax and even higher cost of living. SF has the highest minimum wage in the country but I'd be surprised if anyone there can live on it. When I lived in the bay area and went to college I made $3/hour but I only paid $150/month for a decent 2 bedroom apartment. Any apartments there that size for a little over $450/month?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 10:26 AM
Status: "Embrace the uncertainty of Liberty" (set 21 days ago)
 
Location: SF Bay Area
6,381 posts, read 1,812,451 times
Reputation: 2333
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdumbgod View Post
No it's not.

How about a socioeconomic impairment? As in, does the kid from East Palo Alto really start from an equal playing field as the kid from Palo Alto? The prevailing attitude is "Well, that's just too bad, life's not fair."

Lots of real barriers to success out there, as we know all to well in my business: We work to obtain employment for adults with disabilities, and help them keep their jobs, but their barriers don't necessarily dwarf the struggles of those who face other challenges like racism, sexism, elitism, poverty, domestic violence, etc. But these days, we choose to deny the very existence of these, likely out of expediency, also out of the ease of barking about it on the internet in the hopes of finding approval.
Well life isn't fair, to pretend that it is or that we can make it fair is ridiculous. Making minimum wage near 11 dollars an hour isnít going to change anything for someone working a minimum wage job in San Francisco. In fact, why would someone even work a minimum wage job for 11 dollars an hour when unemployment pays more? To have a living wage in the RBA you would need to pay over 30 dollars an hour, is this what you think is a good idea? These non-skilled jobs are for kids in high school.
Almost everyone faces real challenges throughout their lives. The difference here is I expect people to be responsible for their situation in life and take action to be become more than they are where you portray the government as the answer to this problem. I suspect we would never be able to change each otherís mind on this.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 11:59 AM
 
Location: Eureka CA
3,665 posts, read 4,605,620 times
Reputation: 3535
Tried to rep ya, BigDumb.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 12:47 PM
 
Location: San Francisco
8,451 posts, read 3,540,559 times
Reputation: 4856
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdumbgod View Post
As has been alluded to, how is it that the growing prevalence of so many techies, finance flackies and executives getting ridiculous salaries, bonuses, pensions, and golden parachutes for very questionable 'output' does not add to the costs of living while Pablo rolling burritos in SOMA sinks the state economy by getting another buck and a half per hour?
If the minimum wage was rolled back to $5/hour, somehow I doubt that food prices, rents, etc., would suddenly revert to 1979 levels too.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 05:08 PM
Status: "California Uber Alles!" (set 7 days ago)
 
Location: San Jose, CA
7,472 posts, read 6,355,909 times
Reputation: 4505
Quote:
Originally Posted by pch1013 View Post
If the minimum wage was rolled back to $5/hour, somehow I doubt that food prices, rents, etc., would suddenly revert to 1979 levels too.
Maybe not, but you would have a lot more tent cities and people begging on every corner.

If we would like to address the "welfare state," it's only fair, at the same time, to address the state of corporate welfare. The beneficiaries of the latter get a hell of a lot more than those of the former.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 05:12 PM
 
Location: Studio City, CA
116 posts, read 82,486 times
Reputation: 39
A minimum living wage in San Francisco would need to be $35 an hour.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 05:14 PM
Status: "California Uber Alles!" (set 7 days ago)
 
Location: San Jose, CA
7,472 posts, read 6,355,909 times
Reputation: 4505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Fitsburgh View Post
A minimum living wage in San Francisco would need to be $35 an hour.
Depends on one's definition of 'living wage'. Plenty of people get by with much less than that.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top