Minimum Wage Organizers Protest Outside of Target

MWP-3

About twenty organizers and union workers protested on Thursday outside of the Target Store on Second Street in Davis. They held signs, chanted, and approached and educated customers about Target policies and the $15/hour minimum wage campaign in Davis.

In its Facebook message, it stated, “Target does not want to pay its workers a decent wage. It would rather spend its money on bigoted politicians like Michele Bachman.”

They noted, “Two weeks ago, Target management threatened to call the police to remove our petitioners from their storefront. In the past, Target has permitted people to gather signatures at this store front. Target management does not want a living wage for its employees. It’s time to show them that low pay is not OK!”

Organizer Bernie Goldsmith told the Vanguard that the incident two weeks ago was one of the developments that prompted the protest as a show of support for petitioners who were in a vulnerable position.

For their part, the Target store sent out a representative to let the organizers know that they should not obstruct or disrupt customers’ shopping experience.

MWP-Flyer

They handed out leaflets stating, “Target Pays Poverty Wages.” It continued, “If you work hard and play by the rules, you deserve a fair wage. But right now, working at Target means being paid less than what it takes to live. This Target alone is responsible for keeping at least 500 local workers in poverty. Target is no better than Walmart.”

The leaflet continues, “It’s time to bring a $15/hr minimum wage to Davis. We can change things. Right now, the minimum wage is just $8 per hour. This translates to less than $17,000 per year. We’re trying to put an initiative on ballot for a $15 minimum wage in Davis. This ensures that nobody who works full time should have to live in poverty.”

The organizers need to get 20% of all registered voters, about 7000 signatures, by May 1.

MWP-1

Their notice of intention to sign the petition states their reason, “Someone who works hard and plays by the rules deserves a fair wage. Our current minimum wage subjects workers in our city to economic hardship, sacrifice, and dependence.”

“At a time when our workforce has never been more productive and profitable, we expect our low wage workers to take multiple jobs, be subject to uncertain schedules, and work without health or retirement benefits,” they write. “They are paid so little that they can maintain no hope of improvement. They must rely on government and community resources to make ends meet. Those who work hard for a legal wage should be paid enough to support themselves in comfort and dignity.”

They add, “Furthermore, decades of research has shown that increasing the minimum wage improves the economic climate and the health of small businesses. Providing workers with fairer wages and economic security does not significantly impact the number of jobs. Therefore, we propose an increase in the minimum wage in Davis, implemented in stepwise fashion, to reach $15 by January 1, 2016. It’s smart, fair, and overdue.”

MWP-2

They write, “The state minimum wage has not kept pace with cost of living in California, including in the City,” “worker productivity has dramatically increased during the same period of time that the purchasing power of the state minimum wage has declined,” and “families and workers in the City need to earn a living wage and public policies which help achieve that goal are beneficial.”

The Enterprise this weekend in an editorial argues that “Davis businesses should not be saddled with a $15 minimum wage,” and that “good intentions don’t fund the payroll.”

The Enterprise notes, “If it lands on the June ballot, and gets approved by Davis voters, the measure would set the minimum wage at $11 an hour in January 2015, $13 in July 2015 and $15 at the start of 2016. At that point, the minimum wage would be 50 percent higher than the state rate of $10, with further increases linked to inflation.”

The organizers were originally looking to land it on the November ballot.

MWP-4

Kari Fry of the Centaur Group wrote a letter, claiming to be in favor of minimum wage “increases that are already scheduled by the state of California and proposed by the president of the United States.”  But she writes, “I do not support a localized minimum wage that inevitably will put our community at an economic disadvantage.”

She writes, “I do not support the $15-per-hour minimum wage initiative petition that is being circulated and my company has not and will not provide any services to the organizers of that initiative.”

She adds, “I have spoken with several of my fellow small business owners (some of whom are my clients) and they are, without exception, fearful that they will have to close their doors, lay off employees and/or drastically increase prices if the minimum wage is almost doubled in the course of one year.”

In addition, she argues, “The issue of livable wages is macro-economic in scale, but this proposed initiative does not recognize the unintended consequences on our small community.”  She further argues, “This topic has lacked the necessary community dialogue and thorough research that is a hallmark of the Davis political process.”

Here are two short video clips from the protest:

—David M. Greenwald reporting

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

168 thoughts on “Minimum Wage Organizers Protest Outside of Target”

    1. David Greenwald Post author

      Given where you stand on the issue, I’m not sure that’s surprising. In fact, I’d be surprised if you thought otherwise.

  1. Tia Will

    My concern is not whether or not the protesters look foolish. It is with the ability of a full time worker at Target,
    or WalMart, or any number of other companies not put at risk by increasing their wages, to provide for themselves and their families.

    If companies paid a living wage, or if we as a society chose to provide a living compensation for all members of our society, the government intervention that some oppose so strongly would be entirely unnecessary.

      1. Tia Will

        One that allows for the individual and those they support to obtain housing, adequate food, health care, clothing….the essentials. I leave it to you Don to propose what that might actually come to in dollar amount both in our community, and in the surrounding communities.
        Please forgive me for my aversion to the numbers…..I won’t expect you to deal with “the blood and guts” ; )

          1. Tia Will

            So that would mean that the $15.00 per hour gets us closer, but not to the goal for many folks. This is precisely why I prefer a “living allowance” for all. By your numbers that might fall within the range of $10 -$11/hr for each man, woman, and child.

          2. Don Shor

            No, it means that $15 is higher than the living wage for most people who are working at entry-level jobs, and lower than what people with children need. So why would you mandate that all employers pay all employees $15 an hour?

          3. Dave Hart

            Don, it seems compliance with some kind of means testing or life situation would be intrusive and possibly unverifiable not to mention illegal under present law. In any case, would you as an employer arbitrarily pay one employee $15/hour and the other $10/hour based solely on marital status or if they have kids? That could get very complicated.

      2. Topcat

        The discussion of a “Living Wage” is pointless and irrelevant when it comes to the move to raise the minimum wage in Davis to $15.

        If organizations are forced to pay 50% more than the State minimum wage, there will be far less opportunity in Davis for low skilled and disadvantaged people to work and be productive members of society.

        As a society, we should provide opportunities for productive employment for as many people as possible. This includes teenagers looking for Summer jobs, mildly disabled individuals with mental illnesses or developmental disabilities, recovering alcoholics and drug abusers and ex0-cons trying to get back on their feet.

        I don’t think that a low skilled or mildly disabled worker will be better off working no hours at $15 than 40 hours at $10 per hour.

        1. Don Shor

          The discussion of a “Living Wage” is pointless and irrelevant

          No it isn’t. Those inclined to support this initiative, which includes a lot of well-meaning people in this community, should know what a living wage (a self-sustaining income) actually is.

          1. Topcat

            When it comes to the discussion of whether to raise the local minimum wage in Davis to $15 per hour it does not matter what someone considers to be a “Living Wage”. If the employee cannot provide at least $15 of value to the employer, then there will be no job and no income.

            I’ve asked it before but gotten no answer to the question: How is a low skilled worker better off at NO hours at $15 per hour than they are at 40 hours at $10 per hour?

          2. Tia Will

            “I’ve asked it before but gotten no answer to the question: How is a low skilled worker better off at NO hours at $15 per hour than they are at 40 hours at $10 per hour?”

            I suspect that no one has responded because this is perceived as a straw man question since this is not an idea that anyone is supporting nor is it an outcome that many of us believe is inevitable.

        2. Davis Progressive

          “I don’t think that a low skilled or mildly disabled worker will be better off working no hours at $15 than 40 hours at $10 per hour.”

          that’s the argument that’s always been used to suppress wages. it fails to taken into account: (1) whether there is a way to ramp up wages to avoid this problem; (2) whether employers really are willing to make due with fewer workers to buttress their bottom line; (3) whether job expansion is a product of wage law or the overall economy; and (4) whether ramping up wages actually helps the employers because low end workers have more disposable income to spend on their products. so far your analysis has been very superficial and assumes what it needs to prove.

        3. Tia Will

          Topcat

          “As a society, we should provide opportunities for productive employment for as many people as possible”

          So far so good. So what should we do for the remainder of folks for whom
          “productive employment” as we currently define it cannot be found ?

          1. Barack Palin

            How about we elect a president who, unlike the guy in office now, embraces capitalism and lets the free market grow?

          2. Topcat

            Tia Will Wrote: “So far so good. So what should we do for the remainder of folks for whom
            “productive employment” as we currently define it cannot be found?”

            This issue is much too complicated to address in a discussion of a raise in Davis’ minimum wage to $15. What I can tell you is that the best way to provide employment for as many people as possible is to have a robust and vibrant economy. Over the course of history many people including my ancestors and probably yours have migrated to seek out better opportunity.

            As far as Davis city policy, I think the best course of action is to stay with the California State minimum wage which is set to go to $10 per hour.

    1. South of Davis

      Tia wrote:

      > If companies paid a living wage, or if we as a society chose to provide a
      > living compensation for all members of our society, the government
      > intervention that some oppose so strongly would be entirely unnecessary.

      Does that mean that you would be in favor of cutting off government hand outs/government
      intervention for anyone making $15/hr (~$30K/year)?

      If not what is the “living wage” we need to mandate before we cut off food stamps/EBT/discounted housing/WIC/free lunches/free tutoring/earned income credit…….?

      1. Tia Will

        South of Davis

        I have actually answered this question previously.

        First, I do not see the provision of the necessities of life to anyone as a “hand out”. Given my choice, I would structure our society entirely differently so that each individual, by virtue of living here, would receive enough to obtain the basics of human life within our society. This would be automatic, thus eliminating the need for the plethora of disorganized means of providing for food, housing , health care….
        If we chose to do this, we would have no need to “cut anyone off”.

        I think that our choices of words largely define our differences of how we view the world.

        1. South of Davis

          Tia wrote:

          > I have actually answered this question previously.

          You have REFUSED to answer this question multiple times.

          You keep telling us we need to have a “living wage”, but (unlike Don) are afraid to tell us what you think it should be, WHY?

          > I would structure our society entirely differently so that each
          > individual, by virtue of living here, would receive enough to
          > obtain the basics of human life within our society.

          We would have a lot more people in Davis if you were to give people “enough to
          obtain the basics of human life” for doing nothing in return.

          If I decided that I liked watching daytime TV more than working and my family went on welfare and food stamps wouldn’t we be getting a government “hand out”?

          Is it a good idea for a government to say “well it looks like we need to raise taxes on the people still working so we can now feed South of Davis’ family forever”?

          1. Tia Will

            Your points are worth replying to since none of them reflect my position.

            1) No fear. I can’t answer what I have not calculated. I will accept Don’s numbers.
            2)”for doing nothing in return.’ I have never suggested a stipend for
            “doing nothing”. I have proposed a stipend for doing whatever one is capable of doing with their unique set of skills and talents and whatever is appropriate to contribute to our society for their stage of life. For a child, it would be being in pre school, or school or some learning environment appropriate to their age. For an adult, it might be a job outside their home, or it might be in home child or elder care.
            3)In my proposed system, there would not be welfare or food stamps for your family members to “go on”.
            4) I have never promoted the idea that there would be no accountability.
            I would have each individual account for their contribution just like we have workers account for how they spend their time now.

          2. South of Davis

            Tia wrote:

            > I have proposed a stipend for doing whatever one is
            > capable of doing with their unique set of skills and talents
            > and whatever is appropriate to contribute to our society for
            > their stage of life. For a child, it would be being in pre
            > school, or school or some learning environment appropriate
            > to their age. For an adult, it might be a job outside their
            > home, or it might be in home child or elder care.

            I know you have a good heart, but this is just another example of (to quote the brilliant Thomas Sowell) “replacing what worked with what sounded good”.

            I was not joking when I said I would like to “take classes” and even get a PhD (and write my thesis on California history), but since someone has to put food on the table I just have an hour or two a day (after everyone is in bed) to read and study on my own.

            I know a lot of guys that spend a ton of time working out of state or on the road (commuting to the Bay Area) that would love to take care of their kids or do something else if they didn’t have to worry about money and feeding their kids.

            Our system of working for what people want to pay us and buying things for what people want to sell it for is not perfect, but it is the only system that works. For an example of how well your system works put a box with one hundred $1.00 bills in a box in front of your house with a sign that says “take what you need” and I bet the first guy walking by takes all 100 of them (we tried a similar test with a similar result using a bowl of candy when we walked down the street last Halloween for 10 minutes last year).

            Anyone that needs money can work to get it and they will work as much as they have to get the money they need. Most people will realize that if they learn a skill they can work less to get the money they need.

            P.S. I’m pretty sure Frankly will be jumping out his chair screaming yes, yes, yes if he clicks the link below to read more Sowell quotes:

            http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_sowell.html

          3. Frankly

            Yes, Yes, Yes..!!!

            I love Mr. Sowell. He get it.

            Ben Carson for President with Thomas Sowell as VP. Now that would be a ticket!

          4. Tia Will

            ” it is the only system that works.”

            This could have been said about travel in a conveyance pulled by an animal prior to the development of the gas burning engine.
            Please note that I did not say that I believe that this system has ever been shown to work. I also did not say that there would be an easy or smooth road from what we have now to what we could have. However, there is a major misunderstanding which you seem to be deliberately clinging to with your choice of examples.

            Again, I did not say that an individual would be provided with anything “for free” as in the case of the box with money or candy. What I said was there would be compensation for contribution. I happen to feel that raising happy, healthy, educated children with a desire to serve and contribute to their society is a major contribution and should be compensated.
            Likewise, those who wish to spend their time contributing intellectually to our society should be able to do so.

            Just because something is not currently in existence does not mean that it could not be. Imagination, the ability to envision a different and better future are the hallmarks of being human. I think that in the area of support for our fellow humans, the only ones holding us back are ourselves.

          1. Tia Will

            hpierce

            I think that being able to rent would be fine. Having done both at various times in my life, I can clearly see how some might prefer ownership while others might prefer to rent. The advantage I see is that if it did allow enough for home ownership, individuals would truly have a choice which eludes many today. Also, if someone prioritized home ownership over their spare time, they could earn more money by putting in more hours.
            What I am proposing is a floor beneath which no one could ever sink, not a ceiling beyond which they could not climb.

    2. Topcat

      If the backers of the $15 minimum wage feel so strongly about this, I have a suggestion. They should open a business themselves and they can pay their workers what they want as long as it complies with the California State minimum wage which is set to rise to $10 per hour.

      1. Tia Will

        Topcat

        I have a parallel suggestion. If business owners feel so strongly that the government should not be in the business of specifying minimum wages and providing benefits to individuals then they should also eschew any government “benefits” such as tax breaks, bail outs, “incentives” for particular behaviors as my friend Frankly is so apt to call them in a favorable light when wanting government to give businesses a hand.

        1. South of Davis

          Tia wrote:

          > I have a parallel suggestion. If business owners feel so strongly
          > that the government should not be in the business of specifying
          > minimum wages and providing benefits to individuals then they
          > should also eschew any government “benefits” such as tax breaks,
          > bail outs, “incentives”

          As a (small not politically connected) business owner I don’t get any government “benefits”, “tax breaks”, “bail outs” or “incentives” and I bet that few other SMALL Davis business got a penny from the federal government (unlike the BIG business that give BILLIONS to politicians and get even more in return). I’m not happy that many HUGE companies pay less in taxes than I do.

          1. Tia Will

            South of Davis

            Then perhaps the target of your dissatisfaction and efforts should be the disparity in how large vs small business are treated rather than supporting holding down the wages of the lowest wage earners.

            Truly I empathize with your situation just as I empathize with the situation of the low end earners. I do not know what the best solution may be.
            But I guarantee that the best solution is not to pit the lowest paid workers and the smallest business owners against one another.

      2. Davis Progressive

        so your view is that someone who believes that people at the low end of the wage scale are being exploited should open their own business and not exploit? countless people do that every day, but that doesn’t remedy the problem.

  2. Topcat

    The backers of the minimum wage increase do not seem to realize the consequences. They do not understand basic economics. If the minimum wage in Davis were increased to $15 in Davis, many businesses would have to reduce their number of employees and/or decrease the hours they have employees working. Some businesses would not be able to survive and would close up. Other businesses would move to surrounding communities that are less hostile to business. People considering opening a business would avoid opening in Davis.

    Another aspect that the backers have not considered is the loss of social services due to non-profit organizations having to cut back. Think about the effect on the City of Davis that employs summer lifeguards at the pools and playground leaders. How about the people that work for the food banks, homeless shelters and organizations that assist the elderly, disabled, mentally ill, and those recovering from substance abuse?

    Those that will be hurt most by a minimum wage increase are the lowest skilled, most vulnerable people in society. As opportunities to work and get ahead disappear these people will have a difficult time getting by in Davis. Some make take up panhandling or working in the underground economy. Some may take up burglary or robbery or prostitution. Some may find dealing drugs to be a way to make money. Some will leave Davis.

    As a closing thought for the backers I would ask this question: How is a low skilled worker better off at $15 an hour working zero hours than working 40 hours at $10?

    1. South of Davis

      Topcat wrote:

      > If the minimum wage in Davis were increased to $15 in Davis,
      > many businesses would have to reduce their number of employees
      > and/or decrease the hours they have employees working.

      Don’t forget the HUGE number of business that will CLOSE

      A retail store with two minimum wage employees open 8-8 going from $8 to $15 will cost ~$40K a year (after adding in the cost of the wages and higher taxes and workman’s comp).

      A store like Davis ACE with close to 20 workers will take a $400K hit and might not make it when they increase the (already higher than Home Depot) prices even higher.

      1. Topcat

        Yes, many businesses will find that they can’t survive if they have to pay employees 50% more than the State minimum wage. Some non-profit social service organizations may have to close too. Think food banks, homeless shelters, and thrift stores. These organizations employee people too.

        As I have said before, the backers of this local raise fail to understand basic economics. They people who will be hurt most by this will be the lowest skilled and most disadvantaged people. Is this really what we want for Davis?

        It would be a shame to see lots of vacant retail space in Davis while us residents travel to Woodland, Dixon, and West Sacramento to do our shopping.

      1. Topcat

        Tia Will Wrote: “Again, none of these detrimental effects would be seen if we chose as a society to provide the essentials for all of our population.”

        If we lived in a utopian society where everyone had everything they needed, there would be no need for any of these discussions. Unfortunately we don’t live in Utopia and we are not likely to. We have to deal with the reality of what we have.

        For Davis to raise the local minimum wage to $15 while the State of California minimum is $10 will hurt the lowest skilled and most disadvantaged members of society the most.

        1. D.D.

          Utopia- an interesting concept. My idea re: Utopia is to start with your neighbor on each side of you, as I’ve mentioned before. Look at recent studies that show people who have good friendships (and pets) live longer. If people are healthier, they spend less time in the ER. They spend less time on disability. They are more alert, and have less work-related injuries. They deal with their children and partners better. They are nicer to civilians when they are arresting them. Utopia- it starts with your little community of people who are your neighbors. Get to know the neighbors on each side of you. This world will be a nicer, healthier place.

        2. Tia Will

          Topcat

          “If we lived in a utopian society where everyone had everything they needed, there would be no need for any of these discussions”

          I believe that we create the world that we live in. Each one of us has the ability to say for ourselves, with each decision I make, I will move myself and my society closer to the ideal that I envision. For me, that ideal happens to be one in which
          everyone is fed, clothed, housed, educated and provided medical care. When I make my decisions, I start with this in mind. I do not happen to mind being taxed more, or working more if I feel that my efforts are moving me in that direction.

          I also agree with D.D.’s point that a good starting point is with one’s neighbors. I feel that most of us already have the concept since most of us honor this principle already with those that we regard as family. It is a small step to expand this to our immediate neighbors.

  3. Barack Palin

    “They noted, “Two weeks ago, Target management threatened to call the police to remove our petitioners from their storefront. In the past, Target has permitted people to gather signatures at this store front.”

    As evidenced by the videos, this was far more intrusive than just gathering signatures.

    1. South of Davis

      BP wrote:

      > As evidenced by the videos, this was far more intrusive
      > than just gathering signatures.

      I’m a big supporter of free speech, but I think they should keep the protest on public property. Just like I don’t think that small business owners against the increase should be able have a dozen protestors on Bernie’s front yard blocking his Mom from getting out the front door I don’t see why the protestors get to stand on Target’s private property and harass the people trying to get in and buy some storage bins.

    2. HVenon

      “As evidenced by the videos, this was far more intrusive than just gathering signatures.”

      No wonder why younger generations think democracy is dead. Standing outside and peacefully expressing your opinion is “intrusive.” Activists are treated like dirt.

  4. Barack Palin

    As I stated before, I saw mostly young people (college students) signing the petition outside of Safeway. I wonder if these people realise that if the Davis minimum wage was to go 50% higher than all surrounding areas that it would directly effect their own pocketbook in the form of higher prices for just about all goods. Do they also realise how many people would lose jobs, that service would decline in most stores because of a reduction in employees and I wonder if they like the sight of empty storefronts dotting the downtown?

    1. Topcat

      And what about the environmental effect as more of us Davis residents drive out of town to Woodland, Dixon, West Sacramento and beyond to do our shopping?

      And don’t forget about the hit to city revenues from lower sales taxes due to businesses closing and new businesses not starting up in Davis.

    2. South of Davis

      BP wrote:

      > I saw mostly young people (college students) signing
      > the petition outside of Safeway. I wonder if these people
      > realize that if the Davis minimum wage was to go 50%
      > higher than all surrounding areas that it would directly
      > effect their own pocketbook

      Take a look at what the kids signing the petitions are driving (most have cars nicer than mine) and will just ask Mom & Dad who live in the Bay Area to send them more money…

      1. Tia Will

        “Take a look at what the kids signing the petitions are driving (most have cars nicer than mine) and will just ask Mom & Dad who live in the Bay Area to send them more money…”

        Wow, I am wondering how many of these kids you followed out to their cars so as to know what kind of car they were driving.

  5. Tia Will

    BP

    “it would directly effect their own pocketbook in the form of higher prices for just about all goods.”
    Maybe that is a price they are willing to pay to allow others in our society to have greater prosperity.

    “Do they also realise how many people would lose jobs, that service would decline in most stores because of a reduction in employees and I wonder if they like the sight of empty storefronts dotting the downtown?”
    Maybe they do not agree with you that this is the likely outcome. There are some studies such as the Seattle example that would indicate that this is a legitimate fear of business owners, but not supported by the evidence from communities that have implemented a higher minimum wage than surrounding communities.

    One caveat, although I support the general idea of a minimum wage, given my abhorrence and lack of facility with numbers, I have no idea whether $ 15.00/hr is the “right amount” or not, and in general think it is a major indictment of the callousness and uncaring nature of our society that given the amount of wealth present in this country, that we are squabbling over how many crumbs we should distribute amongst our lowest wage earners.

    1. Topcat

      Tia Will,

      Here’s an idea for you: Perhaps YOU should start a business where you could pay your workers whatever you want as long as it meets the California State minimum which is going to $10 per hour?

      If you have children or grandchildren that need a baby sitter, you can pay the sitter $15 per hour. You can hire people to take care of your yard or clean your house for $15 per hour? Maybe you can hire one of the panhandlers that I see around Davis to do some odd jobs for you at $15 per hour?

      1. D.D.

        My babies were always worth a minimum of $15 an hour to be carefully loved and cared for. No problem paying that. Or grandma or aunty or my best friend did it for free.

    2. Don Shor

      There are some studies such as the Seattle example

      There is no study anywhere that I’m aware of that shows the effects of a 50 – 60% increase in the minimum wage.

      I have no idea whether $ 15.00/hr is the “right amount” or not

      There is no “right amount.” What you need for a self-sustaining income varies by region, by whether you are living as a couple, and MOST IMPORTANT by whether or not you have children.
      Proponents seem to be saying that business owners should pay people wages based on the employee’s circumstances. So we should pay parents more than single people? Because the difference in what constitutes a self-sustaining income varies by about 100% between parents and childless people.
      What bothers me about this is that I’ve posted a link for you about four times now. With about 30 seconds, you can educate yourself as to what constitutes a self-sustaining income in Yolo County. You can see the variables that go into that calculation. So please click on the link and see for yourself, or I may come to the conclusion that you are remaining willfully uninformed in order to sustain your ideology.
      http://www.insightcced.org/index.php/insight-communities/cfess/calculator

      1. Tia Will

        Don

        I appreciate your willingness to repost.

        What you are choosing not to acknowledge is that what I have said several times. I do not in a knee jerk version support the $15.00 / hour. I am in agreement with and agree with you that the presence of absence of children or other dependents is the critical factor. I dispute none of this. This is not my central point which is….all of this goes away if every single individual were to be provided with enough on which to live, depending on where they live and what the costs are in that location, independent of the number of individuals in their household.

        I am having a hard time grasping how you do not see that as different from blindly supporting any specific amount of money for the “bread winner”regardless of their personal situation.

        1. Don Shor

          We have a social safety net in this country. We have many programs to help families that need food, housing, and money. We have things like the earned income credit. We as taxpayers provide those things, and we have expanded the availability of medical care for folks of lower income. We’ve made Medicaid more available. We’re subsidizing health insurance. Unlike some here, I support all of those things. And I believe they make up a great deal of what people, especially parents, need.
          In the absence of any specific proposal to establish a guaranteed minimum income, as you and I discussed on a previous thread (such as the Swiss are voting on), we continue to provide those social welfare programs. Nobody is proposing that. There is no nationwide movement to push for it, locally, regionally, or nationally. There IS a nationwide movement to force employers to pay higher wages. And that includes many employers who presently pay more than the minimum wage. It includes many small businesses who pay living wages to their employees, but who don’t pay $15 an hour.
          So your idea, which I don’t have any problem with, is very nice. But it doesn’t exist in the political realm now. The $15/minimum wage proposal does.

          1. Tia Will

            Don

            I completely agree with everything you just said.
            I also support all of our current social safety net programs. Except as all of us know they are inefficient to administer, overlapping in some cases, and difficult to access for the truly needy in many cases.
            I am further aware that at present, there is no nationwide movement to push for the kind of program proposed by the Swiss.
            I am also aware that every program starts with the idea being proposed by an individual or individuals with the firm belief that a better way can be devised.
            In this particular exchange of ideas, that is what I am putting forth.
            The concept is not new, it is not unique to me, it is not currently popular.
            That does not mean that it does not have merit, nor that it would not be a more elegant, less messy, more efficient and more cost effective way to ensure that we do not have citizens living in poverty while scrambling for subsistence at the bottom end of the economic ladder.

    3. South of Davis

      Tia wrote:

      > we are squabbling over how many crumbs we should
      > distribute amongst our lowest wage earners.

      You must be making a ton of money if you consider $15/hr/$30K/year as “crumbs”…

      1. Tia Will

        South of Davis

        “You must be making a ton of money if you consider $15/hr/$30K/year as “crumbs”…’

        I don’t. I consider paying people less than the poverty level, so that they then have to rely on government subsidies in the form of food vouchers and government subsidized housing and government subsidized health care “crumbs”.

  6. Frankly

    Poor, poor pitiful fools. Apparently they skipped their economics 101 class.

    There are probably four motivations for these people to protest:

    1. $15 per hour would allow them to buy more pot.

    2. $15 per hour minimum wage pushes up other wages and makes the over-paid public-sector union employee seem less overpaid by comparison.

    3. $15 per hour minimum wage results in fewer jobs and more people on public assistance and reliably voting Democrat.

    4. Actually, mistakenly think it is a beneficial thing, but don’t have a clue after being brainwashed by their socialist, Marxist, communist-loving teachers.

    1. D.D.

      Cool. More medicinal cannabis. Less back pain, anxiety, nervous tremors…less xanax to help them relax. Less ambien, less chance they will sleep walk into a door, or sleep walk & stumble down a flight of stairs…they will smoke a few hits, fall asleep at night. A well rested work force. Cool. Less workers comp accidents. Less chiro bills. Less back surgery. Less menisectomies. Cool.

      1. South of Davis

        D.D. wrote:

        > Cool. More medicinal cannabis. Less back pain, anxiety, nervous tremors…

        As long as they don’t smoke it on campus and get beat by the cops…

  7. Frankly

    I have a new business idea I have been working on. I have the business plan and proforma financials, projections and assumptions just about complete. The financial plan is conservative and realistic and demonstrates break-even in three years, and profitability beginning the fourth year. That means that the enterprise will require a certain level of start up capital. The business is manufacturing in the food service sector. The first year it is expected that 5-7 people would be hired. 3-5 of the positions would start at minimum wage. The second year 10-15 employees with 6-10 minimum wage. The third year 20-30 employees with 10-20 minimum wage.

    The plan is to never have more than 49 employees due to Obamacare mandates.

    Also, many of the jobs will be for 29 hours or less per week… again to ensure the Obamacare mandates do not kick in.

    Increasing the minimum wage to $15 changes the financial projections to push out profitability to the sixth year. The increase cost of capital… including the debt-service or concession of equity to private investors… not means that the project is no longer feasible in Davis.

    So, thanks to this $15 per hour minimum wage hike, there goes the potential for 49 jobs in Davis.

    But then Davis liberals (and others?) must feel good about this consequence… otherwise why would they push the $15 per hour wage increase.

    1. Topcat

      Frankly,

      Well done. As I’ve pointed out before, I don’t see how a low skilled worker is better off NO hours at $15 per hours than they would be at 40 hours (or even 29 hours) at $10 per hour.

      It is amazing how little understanding these people have of basic economics.

      1. Barack Palin

        “It is amazing how little understanding these people have of basic economics.”

        That’s simple Topcat, they just look at things in an Utopian view and don’t get down to the nitty-gritty, “blood and guts” (as one poster put it) and don’t realise or care about the consequences.

    2. D.D.

      Tell your bank or other venture capitalist that your human being workers are worth as much, if not more, as your fancy Wolf ovens, your alarm system, your security cameras watching your cash registers, your fire alarm system, and all your fancy computer systems. You can afford the 49 human beings.

  8. Frankly

    Why are these people not picketing the governor’s office demanding changes to help develop and grow the state economy so there are more job opportunities?

    Why are these people not picketing the Davis City Council for failing to put enough urgency and action into economic development so their are more job opportunities and and around the city?

    1. Topcat

      It seems that the backers of the local Davis minimum wage to $15 are NOT interested in more job opportunities. Exactly the opposite, they are advocating a policy that will result in a lot less job opportunities for the least skilled and most disadvantaged people in society.

      1. Don Shor

        I think, from those that I’ve spoken to, that they are focused on the largest corporations — the fast-food places and the big retailers — and they believe that those businesses have enough extra margin to pay higher wages. They largely don’t seem to be aware of the consequences to local, small businesses that would also be affected. They are also usually unaware that fast-food places are franchises, so they think there’s some giant “McDonald’s” corporation that would be absorbing these added payroll costs.
        Some who advocate for a higher minimum wage have accepted having exemptions for small “mom-and-pop” businesses. Others don’t.

        1. wdf1

          Don Shor: I think, from those that I’ve spoken to, that they are focused on the largest corporations — the fast-food places and the big retailers — and they believe that those businesses have enough extra margin to pay higher wages.

          News stories like this support that narrative:

          Fast-Food CEOs Earn Supersize Salaries; Workers Earn Small Potatoes

          At a time when fast-food workers make an average of about $9 an hour, what are the chief executives bringing home?

          According to a new report, YUM! (owner of KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut) compensated its CEO $22 million in 2013.

          Chipotle’s CEO took home $13.8 million in total compensation. And McDonald’s CEO compensation totaled $7.7 million. (Compensation includes salary, bonus and the value of exercised options.)

          Overall, the average compensation of fast-food CEOs has quadrupled since 2000. The figures in the report are based on data from Standard & Poor’s ExecuComp database and company proxy statements.

          The report, by the public policy group Demos, concludes the fast-food industry has the most extreme pay disparity of all the sectors in the U.S. economy, with a CEO-to-worker pay ratio now exceeding 1,000 to 1.

          By comparison, the ratio in the retail sector is about 304 to 1, meaning the CEOs in this sector make about 304 times the income of the average worker. And construction company CEOs make about 93 times that of the average worker.

          In the years since the recession ended, “fast food firms have exhibited spectacular growth in CEO compensation, while wages for their front-line workforce actually declined,” the report concludes.

          1. Frankly

            Class warfare crap. Nothing at all here that is useful in the debate unless all you got is emotives to help enrage.

            Note that you did not include the compensation for the executives of all the fast food restaurants that have failed.

            A CEO that moves a fast food company forward to success and continued profitability has earned his/her reward. And in that success many people have jobs. Tax revenue is generated. Programs are paid for.

            And all you can do is point fingers in a bitter and envious fit.

            You apparently don’t have a clue how thing the margins are and how taking that CEOs compensation and divvying it up to all the employees would not cover even a small percentage of these workers government-forced pay increase.

            Yum! had revenue of $1.319 billion and 466,000 employees worldwide. How far would that $22 million in compensation go to help push the minimum wage to $15 per hour?

            Let’s say a large fast food company has 100,000 29-hour per week minimum wage employees making $9 per hour and now you force it to $15 per hour. That is 150,800,000 hours. Multiply that times the $6 increase per hour and that is $904,800,000 dollars. And you are complaining about the CEO making $22 million as justification?

            Get a clue wdf1. You are just making yourself look silly with these types of posts.

          2. wdf1

            Frankly: Flying off the handle, are you?

            I made absolutely no comment on the issue apart from saying that there are news stories out there to support Don’s observation about protester’s motivations. I have taken no position on this issue. I don’t know how you infer envy and bitterness from my post. But I give you credit for being imaginative.

            Frankly: I need to work on my tone if it conveys these things… because it is not my intent. I am just debating ideas. I supposed I do get irritated at times. source

            That’s okay. I’d still give you a warm hug if we ever met.

          3. Frankly

            I will hug you back.

            Next time please include some indication that you are not posting your own opinion… just that of others.

            As you can see by the math, it is intellectual dishonesty to trot out CEO pay in argument for higher worker pay. The only analysis that makes sense is to take the current and projected profit and loss statement and factor the higher labor costs.

            I have access to a franchise database. I will do some work on this later when I have time (maybe this weekend). I will take the average revenue, average expenses, and average number of FTEs and then calculate the true financial impact of a wage increase from $9 to $10 and to $15.

            I understand that typical fast food expenses are about 70% labor. So don’t be surprised if $15 puts most of them out of business.

          4. Don Shor

            It actually doesn’t matter anyway. The CEO isn’t paying the worker at a local fast-food restaurant. The corporation isn’t paying them. As I was reminded on another thread, fast-food places are (mostly) franchises. The workers are paid by someone who owns the franchise.

      2. Davis Progressive

        why pigeonhole people who disagree with your position? backers of this might be interested in raising the minimum wage and economic development? perhaps what we’re not interested in is providing a bunch of jobs that have no benefits, force people onto public assistance for health care, and cannot pay the bills.

        1. Frankly

          Unless you are in prison or school, nobody forces anyone to have to take a job and do work. Therein lies the complete breakdown of your position and commentary.

          1. Davis Progressive

            i never said people were forced to take a job. i said that those jobs with no benefits, force people onto public assistance like medi-cal because they provide no health care.

          2. Davis Progressive

            didn’t say they were. but what is the cost to the taxpayers for every job that offers no benefits and as a result people utilize medi-cal, aca, obamacare, whatever you want to call it?

          3. Frankly

            You are making the conservative argument that if people are paid more they will need less assistance. That being the case you would expect that today with a minimum wage we would already being enjoying that benefit.

            I think there is a large bit of intellectual dishonesty for any liberal-progressive making this argument. You know that the ideology of the left demands convenient associative comparisons in determination of where and when public benefits are justified. The standard of living for low income people in American is orders of magnitude better than what the middle class gets in 80% of the rest of the global population. Yet that this association does not come to play in the divide and conquer class warfare of the American left. It only matters what that certain CEO makes (see wdf1’s post).

            And so the benefits will not stop flowing when minimum wage is increased to $15. And there will be more unemployed demanding their benefits.

            Yours is a non-solution.

            So how should we solve the problem?

    2. Tia Will

      Frankly

      “demanding changes to help develop and grow the state economy so there are more job opportunities?”

      Please lay out for me with the same precision ( numbers of dollars, businesses and workers at what wages)
      you feel that the government ( presumably this entity would be involved since you mentioned the governor’s office)
      should be supporting. Please include your justification for why government support ( also known as corporate welfare) is justified while support of a higher wage for the workers is not.
      Lest you feel the urge to suggest that I present these numbers, let me point out to you that this was your idea.

      1. Frankly

        The US and the state of California needs 4% or greater sustained economic growth to provide the level of job growth needed. With a healthy, growing economy it would generate enough job opportunities so that the demand for labor grows relative to the supply of labor and business would need to increase their rate of pay to attract and retain good workers.

        Do you really not understand supply and demand?

        1. Tia Will

          I really do understand supply and demand. I also understand manipulation.
          Do you really not understand that these are not pure. natural, unmanipulable entities that exist is some fairytale of free market righteousness.

          Let me share with you how this has worked in the “free market” of medicine.
          For simplicity, I will stick with what I know.
          American doctors as a group have maintained a very tight grasp on how many doctors can be trained and in what fields. They have done this through large and powerful organizations such as the American Medical Association. They have been enormously successful in limiting the number of trainees and ultimately doctors at two different levels, the number of medical schools and the number of residency slots. So an American looking for a doctor to perform his/her surgery cannot just go shop on the “free market” and get the best deal. They are limited by the supply of doctors that an arbitrary group of doctors allowed to be trained in order to maintain their own style of living at a very high level in our society.

          Supply and demand. Only if you like your “supply” controlled by a group exclusively for its own benefit. I am sure that mine is not the only profession or group that has manipulated supply for its own benefit. Come on Frankly, use that imagination.
          I know you can come up with other examples !

  9. D.D.

    re: child care: funny how 2 people will go to the movies or dinner and spend $15 or more per hour for that fun. But they don’t think their precious baby is worth $15 an hour to stay alive with a safe, loving, careful person.

    1. Barack Palin

      Funny but those same 2 people that now have to pay $15/hour for a sitter might say they can’t afford going to dinner and a movie as often so downtown businesses get hurt which in turn further hurts local jobs.

      1. Davis Progressive

        or maybe the baby sitter getting more money now can go out on the town and have a dinner and a movie they otherwise might not have had. it’s not like the money leaves the community when someone gets paid more.

        1. Barack Palin

          or maybe because the couple realises they can’t afford a $15/hour sitter they decide not to go out and the restuarant, the theater and the sitter all lose out. Don’t you think that sitter would’ve been happy with $10/hour instead of nothing?

          1. David Greenwald Post author

            I know you’re kids are older, when was the last time you actually paid for babysitting? I haven’t paid less than $15 this year.

          2. Tia Will

            BP

            “Don’t you think that sitter would’ve been happy with $10/hour instead of nothing”

            That depends on the circumstances of the sitter. Is he/she a teen sitting for recreational money while being fully supported on her parents ?
            Or is he/she a teen whose earnings are going to help support younger sibs since the parents working full time at their respective jobs are falling short ? Or is he/she baby sitting to keep themselves afloat while “couch surfing” at friends homes having had to leave their own home because of abuse or having been kicked out ? Lot’s of possibilities. It’s not all just some cute pony tailed girl next door seeking money for make up.
            Maybe the truly desperate will not see it as $10.00 vs nothing.
            Maybe they will see it as $10.00 vs drug dealing, or theft, or prostitution or return to an incestuous or emotionally or physically abusive situation.
            That is an even less pretty comparison, yet we all know it exists.

  10. D.D.

    At least their kid is safe. Not something I’m too worried about. I’d rather have a safe kid than an overpriced meal. I can’t taste the difference between pinot grigio and sauvignon blanc, anyway…..

      1. South of Davis

        I have never heard of a babysitter getting paid minimum wage in Davis, and today most parents going out to dinner (just about everyone with three or more kids) are already paying close to or over $15/hr…

        1. D.D.

          I had a few trusted friends in north davis that swapped parents nights out with me and my husband. We met those folks by interacitng with our neighbors, in a local playground on the north davis greenbelt. We rarely had to pay a sitter. When I did hire an extremely mature high school student (next door neighbor), I paid her minimum wage. That was in the mid 90’s.

      2. D.D.

        I’m saying sometimes parents’ priorities are out of whack. They wlll spend a fortune on dinner & Mondavi tix but not on the person caring for their precious child.
        Also, I knew several latch key kids who had one or two parents in Davis making an excellent income. Those parents could have afforded day care.

  11. Frankly

    I have two part-time office assistants that make $13 per hour today.

    If government makes me pay them $15, does that mean they are now 15.38% more valuable to me and the company? No it doesn’t. In fact, it is possible that the forced raise makes the employees even less valuable to me and the company as the motivation to strive to do more to be recognized and earn a raise is both immediately diminished and also with the new longer-term expectation that government will continue to force a company to raise wages, so why try so hard to demonstrate increased value to any employer?

    Here is what the demand for a minimum wage actually says:

    – I don’t value merit based pay differentials.
    – I don’t value a market-based compensation system that rewards for skills and performance.
    – I don’t care that there will be fewer jobs and many fewer entry-level jobs.
    – I don’t care that those with less skills and younger people will have a harder time finding a job.
    – I don’t care that more companies on the margins will fail due to the increased labor costs.
    – I don’t care that fewer new businesses will start because their business plans no longer pencil out due to the higher labor costs.
    – I don’t care that even more people get stuck in crappy jobs because the higher skill jobs don’t pay enough more to motivate the effort to acquire the skills to qualify.

    There is a lot of “I don’t care” in this list. That makes it really hard to attribute any form of altruism to the demand for a minimum wage hike. It must be something else motivating the proponents of minimum wage hikes. What might it be?

    1. Davis Progressive

      “I have two part-time office assistants that make $13 per hour today. If government makes me pay them $15, does that mean they are now 15.38% more valuable to me and the company? No it doesn’t. ”

      while an interesting point, the question is how frequently do you increase their salary, because each year they remain at $13, you’re giving them a pay decrease due to inflation.

      1. Frankly

        They started at $11.50 per hour less than a year ago, and will likely make $15 per hour in the next 6 months based on their demonstrated development in taking on more complex work.

          1. Frankly

            Some benefits. But not the full package. That is also something that can come later… but only if they develop the skills to move to another more advanced position.

            Note that every office assistant ever employed in the history of the company has either moved up in this company (one is a highly-compensated loan officer, another is a highly compensated loan processor), or moved on to greener pastures (one is in law school. Another is a teacher. a third is an IT specialist at a large healthcare company in Sac).

            That is the way it supposed to work with entry-level jobs. They are not a career they are a step in a career.

    2. Tia Will

      Frankly

      What you are neglecting in your ” I don’t care list ” is that at least some of us see the world so differently from you that we do not believe in your essential premise that the current market driven economic system with the employer being the best determinate of how much labor is worth is the best system possible.

      So I am going to tell you what I do care about.

      1. I care that every individual regardless of their ties to other individuals or their level of employment
      should have their basic needs met.
      2. I care about the potential contributions that virtually all members of our society are able to contribute, or will,
      in the case of children or have in the case of the elderly.
      3. I care about the contribution of the field worker just as much as I care about the contribution of the CEO.
      Each is necessary to the functioning of our society.
      4. I care about the well being of each worker, even those that are not able for whatever reason to go beyond
      an entry level job.

      You state:
      “That is the way it supposed to work with entry-level jobs. They are not a career they are a step in a career.’

      And that would be fine if we lived in the “utopia” of a free market system in which everyone who made it into an entry level position had a next step that they could move up to if only they were willing to develop the skills.
      Unfortunately, we all know that this is simply not the case, any more than it is the case that my “utopian” vision of everyone being provided with enough on which to live as in the Swiss proposed model is the case.
      To pretend that higher paying jobs exist for all in our current “non free market” system is as much a buy in to mythology as is my plan at the present time.
      While you seem to care more about the maintenance of your ideal while saying that others “don’t care”, I care more about those that are not managing to achieve an above the poverty level income despite working full-time and thus are government dependent even while playing by the rules of the “free market” system.

      1. South of Davis

        Tia wrote:

        > I care that every individual regardless of their ties to other individuals
        > or their level of employment should have their basic needs met.

        Who get’s to decide what the “basic needs” are? Is it “three hots and a cot” (a big dorm with no TV where you work on job skills and finding a way to support yourself each day after work) or your “own apartment with cable TV” (like public housing today where you sit around watching reality TV smoking pot when you are not shooting at each other). I was laughing when I saw the “self-sustaining wage calculator” showing a poor person with their OWN apartment. When I made 10x the minimum wage I had a roommate. Anyone making minimum wage that even thinks about paying for their own apartment needs a reality check in income and saving.

        > To pretend that higher paying jobs exist for all in our current
        > “non free market” system is as much a buy in to mythology as
        > is my plan at the present time.

        You are correct as long as we keep letting in MILLIONS of illegal workers who will work hard for LESS than the minimum wage we will not have “higher paying jobs”. Many of the illegals who come here get skilled in what they do and get paid decent money (~$300-$400 a day to pick high end grapes or do tile floors), but since they are illegal they are paid in cash and pay no taxes (or anything to SS and Medicade).

        1. Tia Will

          South of Davis

          “sit around watching reality TV smoking pot when you are not shooting at each other”

          Was this caricature something you saw while sitting around watching reality TV ?

      2. Topcat

        Tia,

        Could you clarify one point please. Do you support the City of Davis adopting a $15 per hour minimum wage for Davis at the time that the California State minimum wage is set to increase to $10?

        That is the proposal that started off this whole discussion.

        1. Tia Will

          Topcat

          Are you ready for a smile ?

          The honest answer is I don’t know. I haven’t made up my mind on this issue. When I ask questions about facial issues, they are sincere. I am still in my information gathering mode. I signed the petition to allow this to go forward for a ballot because I believe in democratic solutions.

          I also believe in evidence over hyperbole. I know that what I have proposed is a concept, and that I will not live to see my dream of a truly collaborative society.
          And I am a stickler when others refuse to see that their dreams are also not reality such as when Frankly pretends that because he believes that everyone can reach the “bottom rung of the ladder” and thus start their climb that it must be so.

          However when comments are made about all the businesses that will inevitable fail if the minimum wage is increased to $15.00 per hour, my response is to demand the evidence. Please show me what communities have actually been destroyed by business failure induced by this rate of change. Otherwise, I perceive this as a scare tactic based on people’s fears of what might happen, not on the reality of what has happened.

          I also would be a supporter for exemptions for those who can demonstrate that this would truly put them out of business.

  12. D.D.

    A single person in Davis, working full time minimum wage, probably cannot afford a studio apartment in Davis. Maybe rent a room in a house. Maybe have roommates. But not live alone in a studio. So, it is not a living wage.

    1. Don Shor

      Current minimum wage is not a self-sustaining income for a single person in Davis. http://www.insightcced.org/index.php/insight-communities/cfess/calculator
      The self-sustaining wage calculator assumes $817 for housing cost for a single person. If they do not share a rental unit, that requires $11.59/hour income. If they do share a house, living as a couple or otherwise, it requires $9.21/hour.
      Here are the assumptions built into this:
      Expense Type Monthly Cost
      Housing $817
      Child Care $0
      Food $262
      Transportation $287
      Health Care $188
      Miscellaneous $155
      Taxes $330
      I have children who are young adults. I know what they can live on. Most of my employees over the years have been young adults. A self-sustaining income in Yolo County for young adults without children is above minimum wage, but below $15/hour.

  13. Hobbes

    I am dismayed by what these morons are doing. They are forgetting a few simple TRUE FACTS:

    1) If workers are paid more money, every single extra dollar will flee Davis.

    2) The statewide minimum wage was raised as recently as 2008. We have been suffering the increased prices that resulted from that change ever since. Prices have been going up every single year.

    3) It is a fool’s errand to attempt to find local solutions to national problems. Poverty is a national problem.

    1. Topcat

      I think that the backers of the $15 minimum wage for Davis are well meaning individuals. They aren’t morons, but they do lack an understanding of basic economics.

      If Davis went to a $15 minimum wage and the rest of California is at $10 per hour as it will be, what is the incentive for a business to stay in Davis or a new business to open in Davis? Sure, there are some businesses that can’t move such as hotels, large retail stores (Target?) and some restaurants, but a lot of businesses can move or close down. In my years in Davis I’ve seen a lot of businesses come and go.

      One of my concerns is for the least skilled and most disadvantaged members of society. These include people with mild mental illness, developmental disabilities, recovering alcoholics and drug users and ex-cons. I have some members of my family that fall into these categories and I can tell you that it is difficult for them to find work at the current rate of $8 per hour. If the minimum were raised to $15 in Davis, these people would find it impossible to find work.

      There is no simple solution to the problems of our society. Utopian ideas have been tried and history has shown that they collapse as dismal failures. Unfortunately I think that the idea of Davis having a local $15 minimum wage is a very bad idea for the least skilled and most disadvantaged people in society.

    2. Tia Will

      Hobbes

      You state as fact some assertions that are obviously merely your opinion.

      “”Fact ” 1 ” If workers are paid more more, every single dollar will flee Davis”
      So you consider it a fact that no worker will ever decide to use their extra money to splurge on lunch out
      instead of bringing a bag lunch, no one will ever decide they can afford that after work drink with the gang or
      a movie at the Varsity, or maybe a new pair of running shoes at Fleet Feet which they can now afford.
      You know this as a fact ?

      “Fact” 2 “We have been suffering the increased prices that resulted from that change ever since.’

      Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that rises in prices while related to wages, are actually
      multifactorial based also on factors that are independent of wages.

      “Fact” 3 “It is a fool’s errand to attempt to find local solutions to national problems”
      I believe that solutions to problems be they local, state, or national are most frequently derived from local
      ideas which work well and then are adopted on a larger scale as the idea spreads. If this is not true, then why
      would we ever talk about Davis being a “leader” in any innovation, or any other community leading for that
      matter. In my opinion, solutions rarely arise fully developed at the national level, but are almost invariably
      adopted once they have demonstrated merit on a smaller scale. This is actually the principle of a “pilot
      project” used widely in my system to see if an innovative idea will turn out to have more advantages than
      disadvantages when implemented.

      I am not writing this as an advocate for the $15.00/hr minimum.
      I am writing it as someone who feels it is very important to differentiate fact from opinion.
      I am writing it as someone who increasingly is appreciating the importance of local actions in problem solving regardless of how many other communities may have the same problems.

  14. Dave Hart

    I find it interesting that those who love capitalism tout “any wage is better than no wage”; or that lower wages represented by the minimum wage and her big sister liveable wage are too high for businesses to survive. If one replaces the concept of minimum wage in the posts above (Frankly, Top Cat, South of Davis, Hobbes, etc.) with chattel slavery their arguments are just as persuasive and equally coherent. Be honest, slavery would really improve your bottom line.

    1. Topcat

      What I actually said is that Davis should not enact a special local minimum wage that is 50% higher than the $10 per hour that the State of California is set to enact. If we have the same minimum as the neighboring communities, we won’t be at a disadvantage to them. Then Davis won’t be seen as hostile to business.

        1. Don Shor

          Tell you what. This is simple. We’ll all just put a special key on our cash registers. When your purchase is rung up, just indicate you want to pay the “payroll surcharge,” tell us what percentage you want your total increased, and we’ll charge accordingly. Then we can redistribute those surcharges to the employees. Everyone wins.

          1. Dave Hart

            Ooops! Guess we’re not all in agreement. In fact it’s not about the local economy after all. It’s an issue about profits based on the value of labor. Back to my argument about slavery. It’s the ultimate solution.

          2. Don Shor

            In fact it’s not about the local economy after all. It’s an issue about profits based on the value of labor.

            You don’t think there’s a connection between the local economy, profits, and the value of labor? Just curious: how do you think a business arrives at the prices charged? A couple of other questions you might want to answer:
            — where is the money for the increased payroll going to come from?
            — how do you think businesses decide how much to pay their employees?

          3. Tia Will

            Don

            I could not have posed the problem better.
            So starting with the question “How do you think businesses decide how much to pay their employees?”

            I believe that employers determine wages based on what is the minimum that they can pay to still attract the type and quality of employee that they desire and still bring in enough more money than they are expending to keep their business afloat and live on the what remains at their desired level. I know I did not state this eloquently, but then I have not taken economics.

            What is illustrated here is the difference between what businesses do and what I would prefer to see occur.
            The preferable basis of this calculation for me would be ” how much money do I have to pay this full time worker in order to avoid them ( or me ) having to use the governmental supplemental services ( that I have to pay for from my taxes by the way) ?

          4. South of Davis

            Tia wrote:

            > I believe that employers determine wages
            > based on what is the minimum that they
            > can pay to still attract the type and quality
            > of employee that they desire and still bring
            > in enough more money than they are
            > expending to keep their business afloat

            You may “believe” this, but for the most part it is wrong. As a small business owner (who spent over a decade talking with other small business owners) I can tall you that in some cases this may be true, but in MOST cases it is not. If you are paying the “minimum” you will have a lot of turnover and turnover means hiring and training. When a small business hires and trains that usually means the owner is working his regular job plus working on finding a replacement (and often doing two jobs if the replacement is not found before the guy making the “minimum” leaves for more money) then spending hours training (and dealing with mistakes the new person made). Do you really “believe” that most owners would not just pay a little more to keep good workers happy and have a sane life?

          5. Tia Will

            My mistake. I thought I was covering the point that you are making when I said “I believe that employers determine wages based on what is the minimum that they can pay to still attract the type and quality of employee that they desire”. I guess to be explicit, I should have added and which will allow them to keep said employees. I will stand by the rest of my point.

    2. Frankly

      Be Honest Dave Hart… the only slavery I am witnessing here is yours to your fact-less dogma.

      Don’t like your job? Quit. Don’t like what you are being paid? Quit. Don’t like what the employer is offering to pay? Don’t take the job.

      But let’s agree with the fact that some people cannot so easily express their free-will. Let’s just agree with your bit of hyperbole that this makes them worker-slaves given their lack of options.

      Let’s look at how your political dogma contributes to this concept of worker-slaves.

      1. Protect the education status quo! – Crappy public schools crank out dropouts and undereducated kids by the thousands every day. Thereby flooding the labor market with more low-skilled people needing a job.

      2. Protect higher learning and the bloat of their employees leading to hyper-inflationary cost that put college degrees more and more out of touch for low-income and middle-class people. Thereby flooding the labor market with more low-skilled people needing a job.

      3. Demand open borders and amnesty and benefits to undocumented (aka illegal) immigrants, leading to an explosion in the number of uneducated and low-skilled people needing a job.

      4. Demand more and more government transfer payments and entitlements like Obamacare so in Nancy Pelosi’s words “people are not job-locked” and then don’t have to work so hard trying to develop their skills and capabilities to be of more value to employers… and instead can stay in the low-skilled population of people needing a job.

      5. Elect liberal Democrats that have no clue how to fix the economy and support economic growth at a level that we need to maintain a healthy job market. Demand that these same politicians layer on more and more business-hostile regulations that kill job creation.

      6. Demonize successful people… the job creators. Punish them with a higher and higher tax rate. Convince more of then that it just isn’t worth the effort to put their limited capital at risk and put in all the time and effort required to grow business and create more jobs. Call them names and denigrate them and their lifestyle as being too materialistic. Demand that everyone be more like our elite educated hippy liberal that lives an impressive carbon-neutral, waste-free, organic, and low materiality lifestyle. Again… all leading to fewer merchant transactions and sales, and fewer jobs.

      Then… because of your dogged liberal political positions and the easy success advancing the looter-moocher power relationship, ironically you get to demand that remaining business pay the price of all the economic damage caused by you and your ilk… thereby ensuring a perpetual cycle downward to another model of Greece and Argentina.

      If we are going to be so loose with this concept of slavery, then it is clear that the American left are the new slavers… and the giant, bureaucratic nanny government they demand is their plantation.

      1. Don Shor

        government transfer payments and entitlements like Obamacare so in Nancy Pelosi’s words “people are not job-locked” and then don’t have to work so hard trying to develop their skills and capabilities to be of more value to employers

        This is one of the biggest benefits of the Affordable Care Act. It mystifies me why conservatives choose to criticize this particular outcome of the plan. They do, in fact, have the opportunity now to develop their skills and capabilities to be of more value to other employers — not just the one where they happen to work. So it gives workers more flexibility, makes them more responsible for their own health insurance needs, and is a clear benefit to everyone. Employers aren’t stuck with employees who can’t leave because they fear losing their health coverage. Employees aren’t stuck in dead-end jobs because they can’t leave because they fear losing their health coverage. This was a BIG problem for employees at the lower end of the wage scale. I urge you to open your eyes and stop viewing EVERY single aspect of the Affordable Care Act through the dark hostile prism of conservative ideology. This is one outcome that is beneficial in every way.

        1. Frankly

          I agree that there is some benefit in worker mobility resulting from the disconnecting of health insurance from employment. However, an employee can get another job with health benefits to maintain coverage. And there are COBRA laws to protect employees from losing coverage after losing a job. I think actual benefits are minimal and over-sold by supporters of Obamacare.

          But along that same line of thinking… one of the best ideas for improving the overall performance of public-sector employees and business would be the elimination of defined benefit retirement plans to be replaced by defined contribution (401k-style) plans. Think of all those poor people trapped (job-locked) in a position and is not a good fit, or not a good circumstance just because they cannot leave the value of their pending pension. Talk about salvery!

          1. Don Shor

            an employee can get another job with health benefits to maintain coverage.

            Which leaves out all of those small businesses that don’t offer health benefits, including the one you were planning to start in Davis.

            there are COBRA laws to protect employees

            COBRA is very limited, and usually very expensive. You know that.

          2. Frankly

            COBRA is not limited, it is required by law. And it is not more expensive than are the regular employer costs of employee healthcare plus a nominal administrative fee.

            Speaking of “you know that”… at least I hope you know the following fact…

            Costs are costs. Someone has to pay for them. Obamacare is just cost-shifting. There is no “savings” only the perception of some savings from a very small minority of the population at the expense of cost increases for most everyone else. And there are other negative economic consequences due to this cost shifting. And in the end it translates into fewer jobs than would otherwise be available.

            There are facts.

            Note to Don… not everyone needs or wants healthcare benefits. Those that do and work for a job that does not provide them could already purchase an individual policy. And we did not need Obamacare to enact legislation to deal with the pre-existing condition problem. The simple solution to that was to establish criteria that must be met by insurers before they can turn-down applicants or to raise their rates. Someone that does not purchase insurance by choice and then comes down with an expensive injury or illness… too bad, so sad. However, someone that had insurance and can demonstrate financial hardships adequate to explain a lapse in insurance coverage, and a record of attempts to find work and coverage, well then the insurance companies should not be allowed to reject or gouge them for coverage.

            I know the personal responsibility thing is a hard pill to swallow for many people with left-leaning political views. But without some expectations and consequences for the bad choices that people make, we will foment more bad choices and end up bankrupt trying to pay for all the damage caused. Don’t you believe in Darwinism?

          3. Don Shor

            Costs are costs. Someone has to pay for them. Obamacare is just cost-shifting.

            So are risk pools. They’re just cost-shifting. And all the insurance companies were doing was shift higher-risk people out of the risk pools. Been there? No? I have.

            not everyone needs or wants healthcare benefits.

            Yes they do. If they don’t have healthcare benefits, they cost us all a lot more when they go to the hospital. I can’t believe you are actually saying this.
            But this is a very startling statement, Frankly:

            COBRA is not limited, it is required by law. And it is not more expensive than are the regular employer costs of employee healthcare plus a nominal administrative fee.

            Google it. You’re wrong. I’ll give you a US Dept of Labor link for starters: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-consumer-cobra.html
            “Group health plans for employers with 20 or more employees on more than 50 percent of its typical business days in the previous calendar year are subject to COBRA.”
            “This coverage, however, is only available when coverage is lost due to certain specific events. Group health coverage for COBRA participants is usually more expensive than health coverage for active employees, since usually the employer pays a part of the premium for active employees while COBRA participants generally pay the entire premium themselves.”

          4. Frankly

            Don, I know quite a bit about employer benefits. You are wrong about COBRA.

            The premium cannot exceed 102 percent of the cost to the plan for similarly situated individuals who have not incurred a qualifying event, including both the portion paid by employees and any portion paid by the employer before the qualifying event, plus 2 percent for administrative costs.

            And we are talking about California right?

            Cal-COBRA is a California law that is like Federal COBRA.

            Cal-COBRA applies to employers and group health plans that cover from 2 to 19 employees. It lets you keep your plan for up to 36 months.

            Cal-COBRA is also for people who use up their Federal COBRA. When your 18 months of Federal COBRA ends, you can keep your health plan up to 18 more months under Cal-COBRA.

            Q: What are my benefits under Federal COBRA and Cal-COBRA?

            Answers…

            You have the same benefits as other employees in the same plan.

            If other employees have open enrollment periods when they can change from one plan to another, you can too.

            If the employer changes the employees from one plan to another, you change too.
            You have no restrictions because of pre-existing conditions.

            If the group plan offers specialized plans, such as dental or vision plans, they must be offered to you also. However, if you change from Federal COBRA to Cal-COBRA, these specialized plans do not have to be offered to you.

            Me: not everyone needs or wants healthcare benefits.

            Don: Yes they do. If they don’t have healthcare benefits, they cost us all a lot more when they go to the hospital. I can’t believe you are actually saying this.
            But this is a very startling statement, Frankly:

            I was referring to the fact that many employees are covered by their family, or a spouse or have individual policies. Not every damn employee NEEDS health insurance.

            If I hire someone for a job and they need health insurance, it will result in a discount in their salary or their hourly wages. If they don’t need healthcare insurance, they will make a higher salary or hourly rate.

            However, entry-level part-time jobs that don’t provide health insurance benefits will not be a good choice for someone needing healthcare benefits and lacking the means to pay for their own out of pocket.

            It is not my job, not government’s job, to make sure everyone has healthcare insurance. It is not your right to demand that I provide health insurance to everyone of my employees just list it is not my right to demand that you pay a certain wage to your employees.

            Why do you and Tia and others have this mindset that is indicative that you think people need others to take care of them because they are incapable. It is frankly disturbing and quite insulting.

            Make health insurance and health care as affordable as possible. Make the economy grow at 4% or greater. Have a great education system that cranks out a capable workforce. Doing these things would solve many more of the problems than will the growing nanny entitlement mess Democrats are heaping on us. If there are a percentage of people still making bad choices and ending up in trouble as a result of it, then put your effort in helping and educating them individually instead of creating this mess of ineffective rules that punish the rest of us.

            Why don’t you and Tia put some effort into creating more jobs for people so they can take care of themselves?

          5. Don Shor

            including both the portion paid by employees and any portion paid by the employer

            Which is why the employee is ‘trapped’ in the job if the employer has been paying a significant portion of the health insurance. You can’t readily leave a job, losing your income, to go to another job and pay the full share of the cost of health insurance. Many employees could not leave their present jobs, before ACA, because they would have to go on the individual market which is MUCH more expensive, with less income, and pay more of their health insurance costs.
            COBRA merely means that, for a certain period of time, you basically don’t have to apply for new insurance. You pay it all. You must keep it up continuously, even if your income is greatly reduced.

            not everyone needs or wants healthcare benefits.

            Not every damn employee NEEDS health insurance.

            Ah. Very different. Everyone needs health insurance. Not every employee needs to get it through you.
            But you don’t even have 49 employees. So they don’t, anyway.

            It is not your right to demand that I provide health insurance to everyone of my employees

            And, indeed, you don’t have to. If I recall, you don’t provide it? You don’t have 49 employees. But everyone needs health insurance. So, if you’re not going to provide it, they’re going to need to get it through the exchanges.

            this mindset that is indicative that you think people need others to take care of them because they are incapable. It is frankly disturbing and quite insulting.

            When you’re done being disturbed and insulted, ponder the tens of millions of Americans who didn’t have, couldn’t get, couldn’t afford health insurance.
            Why should insurance companies be able to choose who and what they cover?
            Why should health insurance companies be able to jack up rates whenever and however much they choose, without regard to the impact on the public?
            Why aren’t you indignant, disturbed, and insulted over the changes in policies that threw people off of plans when they needed them?
            In this country, health insurance is largely tied to employment. Personally, I wouldn’t care all that much if the employer mandate went away, so long as the individual mandate remained. That is the cornerstone of the ACA, and it makes each individual responsible for his or her own insurance. The exchanges provide the mechanism. The regulations that implement the ACA guarantee that the coverage meets basic standards.
            But because most people are insured through their employers, the employer mandate is included. And because it would be a hardship for small businesses – like yours and mine – we are excluded from that mandate.
            That was a compromise. I’d be happy to expand Medicaid even more, mandate it to all fifty states, and increase the subsidies in exchange for eliminating the employer mandate. But that isn’t going to happen. So the ACA is the most effective way we have to extend coverage to as many people as possible in our current political environment.
            I don’t demand anything of you, except that you not press to take away my health insurance now that, for the first time in decades, I have good coverage that I can afford, thanks entirely to the ACA.

          6. Frankly

            Why should insurance companies be able to choose who and what they cover?
            Why should health insurance companies be able to jack up rates whenever and however much they choose, without regard to the impact on the public?

            Why aren’t you indignant, disturbed, and insulted over the changes in policies that threw people off of plans when they needed them?

            I have pointed out here and in numerous other posts that I agree that we need solve the problem with pre-existing conditions and level the premiums for high-risk, high-cost insured. The GOP also agreed what that. You and others keep going back to that as your primary justification for the Obamacare mess. It is a disingenuous point.

            After adding trillions to our debt, the end result will be higher insurance and healthcare costs for most of us, and we will still have 30 million people without health insurance.

            And we will have a weaker economy and fewer jobs.

            But I guess it still makes you happy.

          7. Don Shor

            Obamacare is not a mess, Frankly. The conservative narrative on it is collapsing. It isn’t going to add trillions to our debt. It isn’t going to cause higher insurance and higher health care costs, Frankly. In the 1990’s, I had back to back 18% and 20% annual increases to my insurance plan at one point. When I went to shop for insurance, I was rejected repeatedly. Sometimes I was offered plans that wouldn’t cover the pre-existing conditions. More often, coverage was denied. You appear to have no idea how difficult it was, until the ACA, to buy health insurance on the individual market with a pre-existing condition.

            The GOP “plan” for what you call “high-risk, high-cost insured” was completely inadequate. Even they didn’t take it seriously. Their high-risk pools would have been underfunded, and the preconditions they would have put on the pre-existing conditions would have left a huge number of people — myself included — without coverage. At this point I wouldn’t trust a plan emanating from the Republican Party regarding health insurance at all. Maybe after a couple more years, and some evidence that they accept that the ACA is here to stay, they will be able to work with Democrats to pass some modifications that President Clinton might sign. Until then, it stays as is.
            Yeah, it makes me happy to finally have health insurance I can afford that covers what I need.

          8. Frankly

            Don Shor: Obamacare is not a mess, Frankly. The conservative narrative on it is collapsing. It isn’t going to add trillions to our debt. It isn’t going to cause higher insurance and higher health care costs,

            Medicare’s actuary experts have reported, and it has been confirmed, that in its first 10 years, Obamacare will boost health spending by roughly $621 billion above the amounts Americans would have spent without the law that Nancy Pelosi said we have to pass to see what is in it.

            10 years $621 billion. The left says “most of this expense will be born by large employers and insurance companies”… as if they have tapped into a magic money tree. All of those costs will trickle down in financial pain to consumers and citizens. It already is. Since Obamacare, healthcare costs and healthcare insurance costs have jacked up at a higher rate than all other OECD countries. More people have dropped out of work or have had their hours cut. Wait times to see a doctor have increased. People have had their policies eliminated and access to their regular doctor eliminated.

            20 years we will easily be in the trillions of higher costs. Plus the other problems caused by Obamacare will continue to mount.

            There were many better ways to solve the problems with our healthcare system. The only two problems were too high cost and access for people with pre-existing conditions. But the Democrats wanted to do it their way. They cut out the GOP completely from the debate and too full, 100% responsibility for the mess that they made.

            The Democrats messed this up big time and our country is, and will be, a bigger mess because of it.

            The cost to the citizens of this country has only started to mount. We traded many more bad problems to correct a few problems that could have been dealt with adequately at a much lower cost.

            But then liberals would not have been able to pat themselves on the back and feel good that they succeeded in pushing the US to yet another failed socialist state that takes over the entire health insurance and health care industry.

            I am happy folks like Don has an easier time getting insurance now. Too bad that this improvement has comes at such tremendous cost to so many other Americans.

          9. Don Shor

            So where does this $627 billion dollar figure come from?

            From the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services:
            http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/proj2012.pdf

            Average annual projected growth of 6.2 percent per year is projected for 2015 through 2022, largely as a result of the continued implementation of the ACA coverage expansions, faster projected economic growth, the aging of the population, and the end of the sequester. While projected growth is faster compared to recent experience, it is still slower than the growth experienced over the longer-term history.
             _By 2022, the ACA is projected to reduce the number of uninsured people by 30 million, add approximately 0.1 percentage-point to average annual health spending growth over the full projection period, and increase cumulative health spending by roughly $621 billion.

            I’m sorry, were you planning to add 30 million people into coverage, including Medicaid as well as people who have been foregoing health care due to cost, without spending any more money on health care in the total economy? When you provide health coverage, you’re providing health care. That’s the point.

          10. Frankly

            I’m sorry, were you planning to add 30 million people into coverage, including Medicaid as well as people who have been foregoing health care due to cost, without spending any more money on health care in the total economy?

            First you tell me that I am wrong that Obamacare would not cost trillions of dollars, and then I provide evidence, and now you shift to a knew argument that it is all worth it.

            Do I also need to list all the quotes from Great Leader and other Democrats that said over and over and over again that Obamacare was going to save money for all of us except the very rich… what about all the tax increases and the cuts to Medicare? After all that and we are still spending trillions more.

            I have not seen my company healthcare cost increased yet because we took an option that allowed us to lock in last year’s rates. But my broker says I should expect a 15-20% increase for our high deductible HSA plan. This will be passed on the employees… most of who are liberal Democrats that love Obama and think Obamacare is a great thing. It will be interesting to see how they respond after they get the news of a few thousand more from their paycheck.

          11. Don Shor

            First you tell me that I am wrong that Obamacare would not cost trillions of dollars, and then I provide evidence, and now you shift to a knew argument that it is all worth it.

            No, billions is not trillions. It is a 0.1% increase. So about $80 billion a year, in a health care market measured in the trillions. Medicare is costing more Medicaid is costing more. Because their coverage is being expanded. And the population is getting older. And the sequester is ending.
            The Affordable Care Act is not a significant factor in the total amount or increased cost of health care for this country.

            Obamacare was going to save money for all of us except the very rich

            The Affordable Care Act has made health insurance available at a much lower cost for millions of Americans.

            But my broker says I should expect a 15-20% increase for our high deductible HSA plan.

            Yes. So either get your employees real health care – HAS’s aren’t health care. Or send them to the exchanges and pay them the difference in salary if they’re worth it to you, and quit whining about it.
            You don’t even have to be providing health insurance for your employees. You’ve already said that in this next business that you’re going to start in Davis, you plan to keep employment below 49 so that you won’t have to provide it to those employees. Why do you provide it to your current ones, but you won’t provide it to these new ones?
            If your employees went on the exchanges, each one could choose the coverage they preferred. You and they would probably save money in the long run. A bunch of them might prefer the bare bones plan; others might like a silver plan. Their choice, you reimburse whatever amount you like. What your broker says is irrelevant. You can probably do better.

          12. Don Shor

            I know the personal responsibility thing is a hard pill to swallow for many people with left-leaning political views. But without some expectations and consequences for the bad choices that people make, we will foment more bad choices and end up bankrupt trying to pay for all the damage caused. Don’t you believe in Darwinism?

            Yeah. That’s why I support the individual mandate. Health care is a right. Health insurance is a responsibility. Without the changes to the marketplace created by the ACA, health insurance was literally impossible for many people. So now that the market has made health insurance available to everyone, with assistance for those of low economic means, it is appropriate to mandate coverage.

      2. Tia Will

        Frankly

        “Don’t like your job? Quit. Don’t like what you are being paid? Quit. Don’t like what the employer is offering to pay? Don’t take the job.”

        Which amounts to being free to “go ahead” and starve if there are no jobs available. If you know that there is a better job available for everyone who does not like their job, or does not like their pay, or only has one job offer, I would love to have you personally post those particular job listings. I would be very surprised if you are not aware that there are simply not enough full time jobs which allow for an above the poverty level for everyone who wants or needs one . If I am wrong, show me the jobs.

        1. Don Shor

          Sure. You can join the military, which is what my daughter did. Or you can become a long-haul trucker, which is what my son did. Certain lifestyle tradeoffs involved with each of those, of course.

          1. Tia Will

            Don

            It is true that you could do either of those jobs if you are young and able bodied.
            Not everyone can join the military.
            As someone who frequently uses personal examples, I think this post illustrates their limitations.
            While your statement may be true for many, it would certainly not apply to the woman in her 50’s who was let go within a couple of years of retirement. Not sure how she is going to fare in the job market.
            During the economic downturn I was frequently confronted with the situation where someone wanted “everything done” because they were about to lose their job, thus their insurance, probably all of their savings, and quite likely their home through no fault of their own.
            No problem says Frankly, they can just get another job.
            Except when they can’t because no one has a job for them.

          2. Topcat

            If you want there to be less job opportunities for the least skilled and most disadvantaged people, a $15 per hour local minimum wage in Davis would be a good way to accomplish this goal. In fact, why stop at $15 per hour? We could make it $20 per hour. Imagine what would happen then.

        2. Topcat

          Tia said: “I would be very surprised if you are not aware that there are simply not enough full time jobs which allow for an above the poverty level for everyone who wants or needs one . If I am wrong, show me the jobs.”

          This is an interesting comment based on the fact that this discussion started with the idea that there are some people who want to drastically increase the minimum wage in Davis to $15 per hour. Such an increase would cause a loss of job opportunities in Davis for the least skilled and most disadvantaged people.

          This is a major reason that I oppose the move to raise the local minimum wage in Davis to $15 per hour. I hope that you also oppose such a move.

        3. Frankly

          So your arguments is that we need $15 per hour minimum wage because there are not enough jobs?

          Tia, I think you sometimes have a tendency to either ignore the points people are trying to make, or else you just don’t complete a full connection of logic factoring all the information you have available.

          Your social justice demands would all be better met if more people were working and more had career advancement opportunities. Yet your political leanings are largely anti job creation and pro job destruction and anti economic growth.

          You can’t have it both ways no matter how much effort you put into concocting some nuanced middle ground.

          1. Tia Will

            Frankly

            And I think that you have a tendency to ignore what I have actually written. I have never come out and stated that I support the $15 per hour minimum wage. I honestly do not know how I would vote on this particular issue if it came to a vote and have said so.

            If you have been reading my exchanges with Don Shor, you know that I would prefer a complete decoupling of a stipend that would maintain an individual above the poverty level based on our current,arbitrarily defined criteria of what a “job” is to a more holistic view of contribution to society.

            I suppose that it is considerably easier to decide, falsely in many cases, what I must believe in and favor, and then tell me why I can’t have
            “my way” even when I have never supported what you attribute to me than it is to actually respond to what I am saying.

          2. Topcat

            Tia Said: “I have never come out and stated that I support the $15 per hour minimum wage. I honestly do not know how I would vote on this particular issue if it came to a vote and have said so.”

            Tia, from reading your posts I can see that you are a thoughtful person. You express yourself well in writing. As a thoughtful person, I hope that you will take some time and effort to understand the ramifications of raising the local minimum wage in Davis to $15 while the State minimum is going to $10.

            Consider the basic logic of economics and you will see that such a local increase would be very harmful to the least skilled and most disadvantaged people in society. I have elaborated some of these consequences and the reasons for these consequences in other posts.

            I would suggest that you read some of the op-ed pieces and letters to the Editor in the Enterprise too as there have been many good points made about what would happen with a local $15 rate. I especially recommend the piece by Jeff and Laura Ambrose​, the owners of Woodstock’s Pizza.

            I look forward to welcoming you to the camp that opposes a raise in the local minimum wage in Davis.

          3. Tia Will

            Topcat

            If you know of evidence that what you say is actually what would happen, please post it. Otherwise, it rises only to the level of what you believe. Has anyone in these op eds put forth actual data or examples of where this has happened, or only their opinions of what might happen ?

          4. South of Davis

            Tia:

            EVERY time the cost of something goes up over 50% (over 80% in the case of the proposed Davis minimum wage) the demand for it drops.

            As a test increase what you bill your clients and/or their insurance companies by an even 80% next week and report back to us what happens…

  15. Dave Hart

    Take it easy, Don. I understand all that. I have no real beef with small business owners as long as I hear recognition by them that (1) they are not in control of the prices they pay, (2) that they are also victims of capitalism, (3) that the very wealthy that sit on $2Trillion in cash and U.S. corporations that sit on another $2Trillion in off-shore accounts are mostly responsible for the dire economic conditions in the U.S., (4) that they aren’t so arrogant as to think that their businesses don’t depend on low-paid employees to make it possible to stay in business. But from the pure point of view of capitalism with a capital C, slavery or at least peasant status is the ultimate solution. That is where people like the Koch Brothers want to take us all. I’m just sayin’.

    1. Barack Palin

      “That is where people like the Koch Brothers want to take us all. I’m just sayin’.”

      Someone’s been listening to Harry Reid’s lies. I’m just sayin’.

      1. South of Davis

        BP wrote:

        > Someone’s been listening to Harry Reid’s lies. I’m just sayin’.

        The Koch brothers are evil Republican billionaires, just like George Soros is an evil Democrat billionaire.

        We need to step back from the “our team good other team bad” mentality and realize that when they are not talking about getting prayer back in school or gay marriage in all 50 states BOTH Republicans and Democrats are working to get more money to the people that bribe (aka make perfectly legal campaign contributions) them and screw the people (they say they care about) if it will result in more money going to their “donors/supporters”.

        You don’t have to drive outside Davis to see what is happening. Every year we have more big chain stores (that donate/bribe politicians) and less great local small business (that for the most part don’t give/bribe much)…

  16. Tia Will

    As of yesterday, we have another voice in the “whose responsibility is the minimum wage anyway” debate.

    According to Bob Dunning of the Wary I :
    “minimum wage increases should be established at the state level, not on a city-by-city basis …”

    Well so far, I have heard postulated that the minimum wage is a federal issue, a state issue, a city issue….I see it completely as a human issue. The real question being asked here in my opinion is who is responsible for ensuring that all members of our society are able to live above the poverty level thus guaranteeing that no additional support from the government ( our tax dollars ) is needed for their support ? I believe the answer is….we are.

    I am possibly the only individual I know who is further to the left of the organizers of the $15.00 minimum campaign since I believe an above the poverty line stipend should be applied to everyone based on contribution rather than “outside the home” employment while at the same time being to the right of Frankly.
    I am further right than Frankly in believing completely in individual responsibility. So much so that I believe that those who are more capable and more able have the obligation not only to care for themselves, but also to provide help to others not so blessed as themselves. How is that for personal responsibility ?

    1. Topcat

      I agree that minimum wage should NOT be established on a city by city basis. If Davis were to institute a $15 minimum while the surrounding communities are at $10 (effective January 2016) the result would be a loss of jobs for the least skilled and most disadvantaged people.

      Some businesses would close because they could no longer make a profit. Some organizations would cut back hours and employees to contend with the drastic increase in costs. People considering starting new businesses would avoid locating in Davis. As businesses leave, city sales tax revenues will drop resulting in moiré cutbacks in city services and employment.

      It’s not just businesses that would be affected. There are many non-profit social service organizations such as food banks, thrift stores, and groups that help the elderly and disabled that would find it difficult to survive. These groups typically have very tight budgets and a big increase in employee costs may mean they can’t survive. Again, the most disadvantaged people in society are the ones that will be hurt the most.

      Summer jobs for teens and young adults such as lifeguards and playground monitors would need to be drastically cut back. Part time jobs filled by teens and young adults would become scarcer and there would be much more competition for the remaining jobs. Our teenagers and young adults might need to travel out of Davis to find work.

  17. Tia Will

    Topcat

    I know that these are all projected possible outcomes.
    Do you have any examples in which cities have unilaterally increased their minimum wage with these results ?
    If you do, of course that would be a deciding factor since all of our goal is to help, not hurt people economically….
    isn’t it ?
    If you do not have examples, do you understand how I might see this as speculative ?

    1. South of Davis

      Tia wrote:

      > If you do not have examples, do you understand how I might see this as speculative ?

      I’m pretty sure no “city” has ever tried to raise the minimum wage by more than 50%.

      What I do know that that EVERY time the price of something (from gas, to cigarettes, to labor) goes up by a lot in a short period of time people buy less of it.

      If Davis were to tack on a 50% fee to help the poor on every health insurance premium don’t you agree that many people that could not afford the higher premium would either drop their coverage (or move to where coverage was cheaper)?

      If the minimum wage goes up in Davis we will have many (but not ALL) employers fire employees and/or move where employees are cheaper…

    2. wdf1

      Does Raising The Minimum Wage Kill Jobs?

      In 1992, New Jersey was about to raise its minimum wage. Right next door, there was a parallel universe: Pennsylvania, which was not raising its minimum wage.

      Card and a colleague decided to study what had happened to jobs at fast-food restaurants in both states. They surveyed restaurants and found that the number of jobs actually went up in New Jersey, which increased its minimum wage, compared to the number of jobs in Pennsylvania, which didn’t.

      Card theorized that employers were making less money. The prices of hamburgers had gone up. But as far as he could tell, raising the minimum wage did not end up costing jobs.

      The study and subsequent book, Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage, bugged economist David Neumark. He explains:

      “It was presented as, ‘Economics has it all wrong.’ And I think that coupled with the evidence that the data looked kind of strange, just really prompted us to say, ‘Let’s go back and get what we think will be better data, and do the whole thing over again.’ ”

      Neumark and a colleague got actual payroll data from fast-food restaurants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. They came to the opposite conclusion: Raising the minimum wage slightly reduced the number of jobs.

      But this was not the end of things. The authors of the original paper then went back and redid the experiment using government data. And they came to the same conclusion as from the first study: Raising the minimum wage did not cost jobs.

      Findings like these are the reason the debate over the minimum wage goes on and on — not just among politicians, but also among economists.

      1. South of Davis

        wdf1 wrote:

        > In 1992, New Jersey was about to raise its minimum wage.
        > Right next door, there was a parallel universe: Pennsylvania,
        > which was not raising its minimum wage.

        The majority of the people in NJ are “next door” to NY (and won’t drive miles though lightly populated NJ central to get a cheaper burger PN).

        Pointing out that since a $0.80 increase in the minimum wage was not a big deal is just as dumb as an opponent of the $7.00 increase showing a HUGE drop in jobs after a $20.00/hour increase.

  18. Tia Will

    Frankly and Don Shor

    I have been following the peripherally related topic of health care that you two have been addressing and feel compelled to respond.

    Frankly said : There were many better ways to solve the problems with our healthcare system. The only two problems were too high cost and access for people with pre-existing conditions.

    The following is in no way a defense of Obamacare which I do not feel went nearly far enough, but rather a direct response to the idea that there were only two flaws in American health care prior to Obaamacare.

    As someone who has worked in the health care field first as a nursing assistant, as a general medical officer, and as an obstetrician/gynecologist starting 40 years ago, I would like to take exception to this statement. There were far more than the two problems with our health care “system”. I would like to name just a few.

    1. We have no system. What we had was a fragmented non-system comprised of individual providers and groups
    to which people were tied arbitrarily, not by their own choice but frequently by choices made by their employer.
    To add to the fragmentation, there was no universal system of documentation, so patients being forced to
    change from one provider to another based on their employer’s choice frequently experienced significant
    delays in care or unnecessary repetitive testing to make sure the right course was being followed when records
    were not received promptly.
    2. Insurance even remotely affordable to all but the extremely wealthy was tied to employment and lost with the
    loss of employment…..for any reason whether or not beyond the individual’s control.
    3. What procedures and medications were compensated, and thus actually available to the individual was not
    decided by the patient and doctor, but rather by the insurance company’s rules. These rules were written to
    benefit the insurance company, not the patient and often resulted in delayed care and unnecessary expense
    and time lost from work for multiple visits when only one was needed.
    4. Before you counter that these problems would be taken care of by “the free market”, let me point out that
    there is no “free market” in medicine. The supply of doctors ( and other professionals to a more limited
    degree) is held artificially low to support the high compensation of those who are already in the profession.
    6. There is also no “free market” for medications in this country. People arriving here from other countries are
    frequently shocked to find that we pay many times the price of exactly the same medication for which they
    would pay a fraction of the cost in their own country. Why ? Probably many reasons, but the two which come
    to mind for me at the moment are that our federal government is precluded by law from bargaining for
    reduced rates for medications and we restrict to prescription many medications that can be purchased
    over the counter or with a pharmacist consult in other countries. Why ? In my opinion to maintain the already
    over priced services for doctors. Although this has been changing recently, I have known many doctors who
    insist on an office visit with all its attendant costs before they will refill a medication that a patient has been
    stable on for years. This has no purpose but to bring in more income for the doctor. This is a defenseless
    practice that still exists in fee for service medicine.
    5. All of these problems had the consequence of pricing medical care so high that many people could not afford
    non urgent care. Without access to preventive care and early
    intervention which are always far less expensive, these folks were consigned to having only the much more
    expensive Emergency Room care available to them.

    Now I will grant you that you stipulated one of the problems as “too high cost”. If you include the human cost of deteriorating health due to lack of access, lack of coordination, delayed treatment, forcing unneeded procedures upon patients in order to meet arbitrary insurance regulations, delayed implementation of centers of excellence because of artificial competition maintained between groups seeking to build market share in given geographic areas then I would agree with you. However, if you were merely citing dollars and cents as the problem, you are missing the much bigger picture of the problems within our health care “system”.

    1. Frankly

      Tia:

      1. We have no system. What we had was a fragmented non-system comprised of individual providers and groups to which people were tied arbitrarily, not by their own choice but frequently by choices made by their employer.

      We do have a system and it works well for most of the population. Just because it is not a central control system like you dream of does not mean it is not a system. There are many moving pieces and they all work reasonably well for most people in this country. Most of the industries in the US are comprised of many moving pieces all working together. Are any of them perfect? No. Are any of the central control systems perfect? Far from it. There is no such thing as a perfect system. The question is what is the best we can do. And judging by the Obamacare roolout fiasco, the central control model is absolutely the wrong direction. Government is incompetent when it comes to running a service business at the highest value. Just look at the US Postal Service.

      Our healthcare system attracts people from all over the world to see specialists and be treated with state-of-the-art procedures not available in their socialist healthcare country.

      2. Insurance even remotely affordable to all but the extremely wealthy was tied to employment and lost with the loss of employment…..for any reason whether or not beyond the individual’s control.

      This is the same argument that Don makes and it is disingenuous. Yes we have tied health insurance to employment. But a person can also buy individual insurance. The issue is only cost and access. If the cost was lower and we regulated the issue of pre-existing conditions, then you lose this argument.

      But then what about the people that don’t make enough money to afford even the lower cost insurance?

      This is where you and I will always tangle. You want to mother and save the world… make sure every single person is cared for if they cannot care for themselves. I think that is destructive altruism. Yes there will be people down on their luck and in need of public assistance. I support it a temporary hand-up for all people possessing the ability to work to earn their own way. And for those that absolutely cannot do so, I support long-term benefits.

      But healthcare is another of the needs we humans have like food and shelter. And we have to work to earn the money to purchase these things. You cannot make it free. Someone has to pay. You seem to think it is fine to force some that can to pay for others that won’t. I believe that humans are animals. Check you local science book if you disagree. And like all animals there are some evolutionary considerations. You can either strengthen or weaken the tribe. A strong tribe is comprised of a larger majority of members that take care of their business and are not a drain to the rest. But your politics and social justice demands sends the message that life doesn’t require struggle for certain people… that others will always take care of them. It is destructive. It weakens the tribe. It makes too many of us moochers and demanding more and more hand-outs.

      The effort should be to help keep our needed products and services and inexpensive as possible while also ensuring a robust economic and education system that cranks out the highest percentage possible of people that can economically care for themselves. We owe our tribe members the dignity and self-satisfaction of them being able to pay their own way.

      3. What procedures and medications were compensated, and thus actually available to the individual was not decided by the patient and doctor, but rather by the insurance company’s rules. These rules were written to benefit the insurance company, not the patient and often resulted in delayed care and unnecessary expense and time lost from work for multiple visits when only one was needed.

      HMOs developed precisely because the medical service industry was doing a lousy job controlling costs. And the cost increase included, and still do, the high compensation of medical industry employees. US nurses and medical technicians are the highest paid in the nation, and work the fewest hours of all other industrialized countries. Our doctors are well-compensated too. Although the education requirements are such that this, for doctors, is justified to a large degree.

      But please don’t preach about the high costs when your salary puts you at the very top compensation for all professional service professions.

      Preaching that the insurance companies are the ones to blame is like blaming the police for crime.

      4. Before you counter that these problems would be taken care of by “the free market”, let me point out that there is no “free market” in medicine. The supply of doctors ( and other professionals to a more limited degree) is held artificially low to support the high compensation of those who are already in the profession.

      There is no purely free market in any industry within a Democratic system. Capitalism accepts the need for some regulation. However, you are correct in that our healthcare industry is even less free than most… because government over-regulates it. And trial lawyers are like parasites that attach themselves to it to such out more money that would otherwise be used to improve the system.

      If it were more free, it would be less costly.

      6. There is also no “free market” for medications in this country. People arriving here from other countries are frequently shocked to find that we pay many times the price of exactly the same medication for which they would pay a fraction of the cost in their own country.

      People are idiots in that most of the life-saving medication that they complain about paying for was developed in the US. The costs to develop a new drug are astronomical because of regulations and the trial lawyers. Most other countries just let the US do the work and then steal and mooch our inventions and then subsidize the cost in their looter-moocher socialist systems. They can do this because the US has maintained the position as the producer. Who will do the production going forward if you have your way and we eliminate the profitability of drug development while we do nothing to change the FDA rules and allow the trail attorneys to keep leach away billions in frivolous lawsuits?

      As a doctor I am disappointed that you don’t hold a more reasoned view related to drug technology.

      5. All of these problems had the consequence of pricing medical care so high that many people could not afford non urgent care. Without access to preventive care and early intervention which are always far less expensive, these folks were consigned to having only the much more expensive Emergency Room care available to them.

      Let’s be clear here. We are talking about a very high percentage of these people being recent immigrants and many of them illegal immigrants. And then because we have flooded our labor pool with so many more and uneducated people, and also wrecked economic growth that would otherwise produce jobs, now we have more other second and older generation Americans unable to find work and make enough of a living.

      I have said it before… liberals are so obsessed with taking care of people that they see as not being able to take care of themselves, that they are motivated to create more. A lot of Obamacare and other costly government programs are to pay for the lack of border control and the lack of immigration enforcement.

      To summarize….

      The primary problem with your and other liberal’s demands for our healthcare system is simply this…

      WE CANNOT AFFORD IT! WE CANNOT AFFORD IT! WE CANNOT AFORD IT!

      THERE WERE/ARE BETTER SOLUTIONS THAT DEMOCRATS IGNORED FOR POLITICAL REASONS!

      But because you have elected Great Leader, and he has crammed Obamacare down our throats by mostly fiat and probable illegal means, we will suffer the consequences of even greater fiscal problems… while healthcare service costs and shortages continue to spiral out of control.

      But then some of us are happy with this. We get our free stuff, or we get all warm and fuzzy from satiating our obsession to save people.

      1. Don Shor

        WE CANNOT AFFORD IT! WE CANNOT AFFORD IT! WE CANNOT AFORD IT!

        THERE WERE/ARE BETTER SOLUTIONS THAT DEMOCRATS IGNORED FOR POLITICAL REASONS!

        We could not afford to continue as we were. People were dying and going bankrupt and going without health care. There were no better solutions from the other side of the aisle. None that accomplished the same objectives. Period.
        You can stop insulting me and others for our support of Obama. Your insults accomplish nothing. I’m not getting anything ‘free’. I’m not trying to save people. You deny the magnitude of the problem that existed.

  19. Tia Will

    Frankly

    “Why do you and Tia and others have this mindset that is indicative that you think people need others to take care of them because they are incapable. It is frankly disturbing and quite insulting.”

    What I find disturbing and insulting is your failure to admit that some people will experience life events
    that make it impossible for them to care for themselves for extended periods of time. This does render
    them incapable, but I do not find this insulting. People may become incapacitated by strokes, or cancer,
    or closed head injuries or in some cases invisible illnesses such as eating disorders or other mental disorders.
    It is not an insult to recognize that they are incapacitated and to help them.

    “We do have a system and it works well for most of the population”

    I am using the word “system” per the first usage in the dictionary to mean “an assemblage or combination of
    things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole”. This, we do not have. Please provide support to sub-
    stantiate your claim that what we had worked “well for most of the population”.
    This smacks of opinion, not fact from someone who I am fairly sure has never provided health care or staffed
    a free clinic or migrant worker health fair.

    “Our healthcare system attracts people from all over the world to see specialists and be treated with state-of-the-art procedures not available in their socialist healthcare country.”

    Perhaps you are unaware of the increasing trend towards medical tourism in which people from the US are
    shopping for packages overseas where they can have any variety of operations from hysterectomy to hip
    replacement done at a fraction of the cost to them than it would cost here, with equal medical outcomes and
    better “service” provided by patient;s own rankings than they would receive here.

    “a person can also buy individual insurance. The issue is only cost and access.”

    What you are neglecting to mention is that we do not control cost. One could equally well say if we had
    wings we could fly. Again, I prefer to deal with the world as I find it, not in terms of, “if only” which is
    what you are selling with this argument.

    “a temporary hand-up for all people possessing the ability to work to earn their own way. And for those that absolutely cannot do so, I support long-term benefits.”

    And who gets to determine who is “worthy”. You are right, we have gone down this path before. I will
    not cede the right to determine worthiness to you, and I am quite sure you would not cede it to me.

    “And we have to work to earn the money to purchase these things. You cannot make it free”

    Money is an artificial construct that we have invented. It does not have to be, nor should it be the unit of
    exchange from my point of view. This is a matter of choice not necessity. We could just well define an
    hour as the unit of exchange and allow people to trade an hour of their time for an hour of someone else’s.
    This would clearly level the playing field because it would value everyone’s contribution equally instead of
    arbitrarily assigning winners and losers.

    “But please don’t preach about the high costs when your salary puts you at the very top compensation for all professional service professions.”

    I guess you completely missed the part where I held doctors groups completely responsible for their role
    in artificially maintaining doctors incomes by limiting the number or training slots. Or maybe it is
    completely inconceivable to you that someone would hold their own group partially responsible for the
    problem. Maybe you also missed the part where I have said repeatedly that I think compensation should
    be based on time, not on an artificially designed system of “value”.

    “Preaching that the insurance companies are the ones to blame is like blaming the police for crime.”

    Insurance companies are to blame for their contribution just as doctors are to blame for theirs. The police
    are culpable for excessive force when used just as the thief is responsible for stealing. Guilt on one side
    does not preclude guilt on the other side.

    “steal and mooch our inventions and then subsidize the cost in their looter-moocher socialist systems”

    Our drug companies are more than happy to negotiate with other countries for lower prices for most drugs.
    They just have rigged the game so that our own country cannot negotiate. I fail to see how you can call
    it “theft” when the manufacturers are the one’s agreeing to the deals.

    “As a doctor I am disappointed that you don’t hold a more reasoned view related to drug technology.”

    As a businessman, I am disappointed that you critically accept the word of drug companies about the cost
    of their “technology and its expenses”. Let me give you just one example of the expense of developing a
    new drug and how that was exploited by its manufacturer. Many years ago, a new oral contraceptive using
    a different combination of hormones which gave it some specific advantages was formulated and marketed
    at significantly above the going rate for BCP. Fair enough so far, they had made a valuable addition to
    women’s health. Shortly before the proprietary rights to this drug were due to expire thus becoming
    generic and allowing others to manufacture it for much less, the company did the following. They decreased
    the amount of one component by a trivial ( subclinical amount), ran a questionable study that demonstrated
    it to be “superior” to its predecessor ( it wasn’t) and marketed it ( directly to woman) as a huge innovation
    for a still higher price. It was neither improved, nor an innovation but I and virtually every other gyn doc
    was bombarded by patient’s wanting the new drug despite the higher price. I spent untold hours explaining
    why it wasn’t any better and why if they had done well so far they shouldn’t change and would actually be
    better of on the less expensive version.
    I don’t expect you to know much about this practice, but I have seen it over and over again.

    “We are talking about a very high percentage of these people being recent immigrants and many of them illegal immigrants.”

    Quite frankly I don’t care who they are. Being American is an accident of birth. If you are human, and you
    are here, I will do my best to take care of you. Yes, I have started IV’s and given antibiotics and sutured
    wounds and delivered babies for many people without the slightest thought about their legal status. And,
    I guess I am not a liberal by your definition since I have been quite adept at taking care of not only myself
    but those who are to a greater or lesser degree dependent upon me. Fancy that !

    “he primary problem with your and other liberal’s demands for our healthcare system is simply this…

    WE CANNOT AFFORD IT!”

    Of course we can. We simply choose not to. Other countries manage to do so, and so could we if:
    we eliminated the completely unnecessary costs of insurance companies by spreading the risk across the
    entire population, sharply reduced the compensation of doctors by allowing more to be trained, sharply
    reduced the payment to pharmaceutical companies for their non innovations while still rewarding true
    innovation, collaborating in centers of excellence instead of pitting one medical system against another,
    cut the malpractice lawyers out of the loop entirely by going to forced mediation for all claims, and
    provided preventive and early intervention care for everyone thus dramatically reducing the need for ER
    and highly specialized care by preventing more serious problems from arising from ones that could easily
    be handled at the level of the primary care provider, NP or PA instead of driving care to the most expensive
    specialist. I believe that these steps alone would more than pay for the changes and they are just the tip
    of the iceberg of what could be accomplished if we had a collaborative rather than a competitive system.
    The Kaiser model has largely demonstrated this by implementing as much of this as is possible for a private
    group. You just refuse to see it because it does not fit your preconceived notion of virtuous private industry,
    evil incompetent government.

      1. Frankly

        Laughter is good medicne when you are unable to understand facts. It will help make you feel better.

        It might be one of those topic beyond your abilitiy to comprehend. That’s okay Don. I have epathy for folks with cognitive dissonance.

        But I’m sure one day the light bulb will go on for you… probably years from now when you cannot afford health insurance again and you are unable to get the care you need in a timely manner.

        At that time you will have that epiphany… we destroyed the best healthcare system in the world only because leftist politicians were pursuing an agenda of a take-over of 1/3 of the economy so that they could better benefit financially from it. And in the end you will understand that the ONLY problems we needed to solve were to reduce the cost of healthcare, and the earning potential of customers of healthcare, so more people can afford it, and that nobody gets penalized too much for their health problems.

        Here is something else you will see happen. Well off people will start spending their money outside of the US to get healthcare. You and your political ilk, in your inability to separate the emotional turmoil of health problems with the actual business of health care, have ensured true class division will occur. Say hi to concierge healthcare. How will you enslave all the producers to prevent them from pulling good medical service providers to that model?

        Instead of pulling those in lower economic circumstances forward to participate in the good, you have destroyed the good… pulling it down to an eventual low quality pile of junk. You have turned our Fed-Ex, UPS healthcare system into the US Postal Service healthcare system.

        Tia’s rant about not needing money is a fine example of a twisted and non-sensical worldview that helps me understand that there is no longer any need to debate the two of you on this. The continued decline is inevitable and the only solution is for those with true understanding to find ways to leave the rest of you to the destruction of healthcare at your own hand.

        1. Don Shor

          Laughter is good medicne when you are unable to understand facts. It will help make you feel better.

          It might be one of those topic beyond your abilitiy to comprehend.

          You need to stop this crap. You’ve never, as far as I can tell, been denied insurance. Have you?

          At that time you will have that epiphany… we destroyed the best healthcare system in the world

          It is not, was not, the best healthcare system in the world.

          only because leftist politicians were pursuing an agenda of a take-over of 1/3 of the economy so that they could better benefit financially from it.

          Wow. Yeah.

          And in the end you will understand that the ONLY problems we needed to solve were to reduce the cost of healthcare, and the earning potential of customers of healthcare, so more people can afford it, and that nobody gets penalized too much for their health problems.

          Yes, that would be nice. Death and bankruptcy were awfully unfortunate “penalties.”

          in your inability to separate the emotional turmoil of health problems with the actual business of health care, have ensured true class division will occur.

          Oh, sorry. Those class divisions didn’t exist before? You know, between those who could get and afford health care, and those who couldn’t?

          Say hi to concierge healthcare.

          Great model for those who can afford it. I imagine someday it might actually make up a tiny fraction of our health care economy. The uber rich can do whatever they want.

          How will you enslave all the producers to prevent them from pulling good medical service providers to that model?

          There will never be enough really, really rich people who want that for it to be an issue.

          Instead of pulling those in lower economic circumstances forward to participate in the good, you have destroyed the good… pulling it down to an eventual low quality pile of junk.

          Yes, it’s really sad what happens when you make health care available to tens of millions of people who didn’t have access to it before. Those unwashed masses. You might actually have to hobnob with them in waiting rooms now. Unless you call your concierge.

          Tia’s rant about not needing money is a fine example of a twisted and non-sensical worldview that helps me understand that there is no longer any need to debate the two of you on this.

          Tia and I don’t share the same goal for health care. I consider the ACA an acceptable method for delivering it, while she prefers single-payer. But you’re right.
          You don’t think there’s a problem when tens of millions of Americans go without health care.
          You don’t think there’s a problem when health insurance companies throw people off of plans.
          You think that any solution is too expensive.
          You don’t believe health care is a right.
          We don’t share the same values. I consider mine more American, but that’s just where I come from, I guess.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for