Analysis: As $13 Minimum Wage Passes State Senate, Is $15 in Davis Still Unthinkable?

Protestors in Davis rally for minimum wage outside of Target
Protestors in Davis rally for minimum wage outside of Target

It was a bare majority of 21 Senators, but SB 935, which would increase the minimum wage in three steps and create an automatic adjustment in 2018, would seem to put a $15 an hour minimum wage in Davis back into discussion.

Senate Bill 935, authored by Senator Mark Leno, raises the minimum wage in three steps, starting at $11 an hour in 2015 and increasing an additional $1 per hour in both 2016 and 2017. Beginning in 2018, the minimum wage would be adjusted annually to the rate of inflation. SB 935 is co-sponsored by the Women’s Foundation of California and SEIU California State Council.

“Increasing the minimum wage is critically important to millions of hard-working Californians and their families who live in poverty and are forced to rely on the state’s social safety net programs despite being employed full time,” said Senator Leno, D-San Francisco. “By giving low-income workers the pay and respect they deserve, we will also address the growing inequality within our communities, which is a roadblock to economic recovery and a drain on already limited taxpayer resources.”

According to a release from Senator Leno’s office, “The Census Bureau reports that nearly a quarter of California’s 38 million residents, or 24 percent, live in poverty. An employee working full time earning $8 an hour brings home just $15,360 annually before taxes. The federal poverty level for a family of four with a single-wage earner is $23,850. San Francisco already has a higher minimum wage than the state and is considering raising it even higher. Los Angeles is also considering raising its minimum wage for hotel workers to $15.37 per hour.”

It adds, “Women are disproportionately impacted by the minimum wage. About six in 10 minimum wage workers in California are women, according to the National Women’s Law Center.”

“Not only will the proposed increase stabilize women, it will stabilize families and stimulate the economy,” said Judy Patrick, President and CEO of the Women’s Foundation of California. “Because women are disproportionately minimum wage workers, raising the minimum wage would help close the gender wage gap. In addition, six out of 10 of the women earning minimum wage are breadwinners. Yet, despite working hard, because of the high cost of living in California, these women and their families are living in poverty. The long-term impact of this poverty is very costly to the state and to these families.”

Earlier this year, President Barack Obama raised the minimum wage for federal contract workers to $10.10 per hour while Congress weighed a proposal by Rep. George Miller (D-CA) and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) setting the federal minimum wage to the same amount. In addition, prominent conservatives across the country, including Mitt Romney, Bill O’Reilly, Patrick Buchanan and Ron Unz, have recently expressed support for raising the minimum wage.

The release continues, “Importantly, Gov. Jerry Brown took a necessary first step of signing legislation that brings the state’s lowest wage up to $9 per hour later this year and $10 per hour in 2016. It would, though, still fall short of both the federal and give Californians less purchasing power than the state’s minimum wage did in 1968. That year’s minimum wage, if adjusted for inflation, would be worth $10.77 per hour today. Last year’s action also did not include the critical step of requiring automatic increases in the minimum wage to protect future earnings against inflation.”

The release notes, “New analysis from Human Impact Partners finds that raising the state’s current minimum wage to $13 by 2017 would significantly benefit the health and well-being of low-income Californians and their families.”

“A person’s income not only directly affects the ability to meet material needs, but it also impacts health through access to health care, quality and affordable neighborhoods, child health and development, chronic stress and interpersonal relationships,” Bruce Pomer, executive director of the Health Officers Association of California. “As a result, the 7.5 million lower-income Californians who could expect an increase in family income as a result of this legislation would also experience fewer chronic diseases and disabilities, less hunger, and lower rates of smoking, obesity and depression.”

It adds, “SB 935 is supported by a broad coalition of groups, including consumer advocacy, human rights, labor, government, health care and social worker organizations. It will be heard next in Assembly policy committees.”

In Davis, the push to put a $15/hour minimum wage ordinance on the ballot stalled after it generated a lot of controversy and concern.

But if the state minimum wage would go up to $13 an hour and Davis has a higher cost of living than other areas, does that put it back on the map?

Proponents argue, “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.”

But opponents are quick to cite data that many minimum wage earners are not the primary wage earners in their family. And that most minimum wage earners are young.

Another issue is whether a city should be the one making minimum wage laws.

As we have noted, Kari Fry in her letter claims 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.”

The Enterprise in their editorial writes, “Oh, and while we’re at it: We oppose a city-by-city approach to the minimum wage. The state is the appropriate place for this change to occur.”

While that may not be an unreasonable position, it does ignore an interesting factor. California is almost as diverse as the United States. We have a federal minimum wage which sets the overall floor for wages and states are free to go higher.

Why should the same principle not apply within the state of California? It is not like all communities in California cost the same to live in. So if someone makes a given wage in Dixon or Woodland they have better purchasing power than someone who makes the same wage in Davis. So why not allow minimum wage laws to account for local preference and conditions?

It seems unlikely that the $13 minimum wage would get through a more conservative State Assembly and get signed by an increasingly pragmatic Governor Jerry Brown – particularly in an election year in which he is a shoe-in for a landslide reelection, but once again, this puts the idea of an increased minimum wage with an automatic inflator back into discussion.

—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

68 thoughts on “Analysis: As $13 Minimum Wage Passes State Senate, Is $15 in Davis Still Unthinkable?”

  1. Tia Will

    ““A person’s income not only directly affects the ability to meet material needs, but it also impacts health through access to health care, quality and affordable neighborhoods, child health and development, chronic stress and interpersonal relationships,”

    Also, it affects the purchasing power of that individual. A worker with more disposable income is a worker more likely to make more discretionary purchases thus helping the businesses that believe that they will only be adversely affected. One small example from my own past. I read a lot. I like to read books. Long before there were e-readers, I spent much of my time reading actual paper books. When I was without money, I chose to get my books from the library. Once I started making more money, I started frequenting the bookstores including
    The Avid Reader. I am sure the owner of the Avid Reader benefitted far more from my patronage of her shop than she did from my patronage of the library. Likewise, I began going out to more restaurants and buying or renting more movies and games and purchasing more clothing and sports gear. My family became, with increasing income, much more beneficial to the local economy than we had been previously. This is a major point being ignored by those who contend that they know raising the
    minimum wage to be detrimental.

    1. Topcat

      Ti wrote: “My family became, with increasing income, much more beneficial to the local economy than we had been previously. This is a major point being ignored by those who contend that they know raising the
      minimum wage to be detrimental.”

      I think we all agree that those who make more money spend more money. I know that works for me. If I get a bonus or make extra money working overtime, I tend to spend it or help my disabled family member who will quickly spend it.

      The problem with raising the local minimum wage is that it results in more people unable to find work because they are priced out of the market. Also, as we have discussed before, employers will have a strong incentive to cut back employees, or hours worked. Some employers may leave Davis and others who may be considering locating here will choose not to.

      Rather than helping those at the lowest end of the job skills spectrum, a local minimum wage hike would result in less employment, less income and less spending money. This is the point that the advocates for raising the wage fail to address.

    1. Good Government

      Exactly! I’m definitely going to go to Texas to buy lunch, get my car washed, buy groceries and have my house cleaned! Wait a minute…

      1. Barack Palin

        Au contraire, many businesses have minimum wage jobs intermingled with higher paid positions. My son works for a company that pays 100’s of game testers at minimum wage but also has a multitude of jobs that pays in the $100,000’s. So for you to think that all thses minimum wage jobs are car washers, sandwich makers, grocery baggers, house cleaners, etc is greatly mistaken. Wait a minute…..

        1. Tia Will

          Barack and Good

          What you have posted are the extremes. Obviously, the truth lies somewhere in between. No one has claimed that “all minimum wage jobs are the one’s Barack listed. But it would be equally erroneous to pretend that none of them are.

          What is being sought by the advocates of a minimum wage increase is a minimum at which people who are completely dependent upon their own wages to support themselves and their families, is a rate of pay at which they can do so without relying on the government to supplement their food through SNAP. I would think that this would be a “no brainer” since it is our taxes that are used to support them when their full time job is insufficient to support themselves and their families.

          True, this means that the teen who is just earning spending cash will also get more, but then, that is more that he or she is likely to spend locally on recreational items. Arguing purely one side or the other is to miss the bigger picture and this is true regardless of which side one is on.

          1. Barack Palin

            When these lower wage earners have more to spend the money has to come from somewhere? So consumers will have less to spend because business owners will have to raise their prices to cover higher costs, business owners will have less to spend on hiring new employees, less to spend on capital improvements or opening new businesses, etc……….

          2. Tia Will

            Barack

            Again, you resort to an absolute. Some business owners will have to raise their prices. Some would not have to and still would have a comfortable profit margin ( although perhaps a little lower than they would like). One thing that we do know, is that increasing income leads to a greater percentage of that income returned to the local economy for people working at the lower end of the economy purchasing necessities than it does when the additional income is distributed to the companies CEOS and shareholders who already have plenty to spend.
            It is the nuances, not the absolutes, that have prompted me to communicate on this issue.

          3. Sam

            Tia,

            Do you really believe that if you double the minimum wage then the only change on the economy is going to be that low wage earners wages double and therefore their buying power doubles?
            One full time job at McDonalds is NEVER going to support a family of four no matter how high you set the minimum wage.

          4. Tia Will

            Sam

            “Do you really believe that if you double the minimum wage then the only change on the economy is going to be that low wage earners wages double and therefore their buying power doubles?”

            No, and that is something that I have never said. There will of course be multiple effects on the economy both good and bad.. What I object to is either side, the catastrophists that claim that they know small business will fail, and the proponents who claim that they know that an increase of a specific amount is optimal are both attempting to paint too simplistic a picture.

            I am an individual who perceives and appreciates nuances.
            Frankly has claimed that I do this to somehow assuage my liberal hypocrisy and guilt. I believe that I do it because unlike some, I genuinely see almost all proposals as having their pros and cons and that one can only attempt to create a balance which creates the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people.

          5. TrueBlueDevil

            Yes, all proposals have their pros and cons. Some will benefit, and some will lose their jobs.

            When you raise the price of anything, the consumer will make choices, whether it is the person buying yogurt, or the business owner who sells the yogurt.

            In this example, it is true that the yogurt shop can’t move to Texas. But this hypothetical Mom and Pop yogurt shop might decide to end the job of two students, while the spouse fills in for those reduced hours. This shop could also close one day a week, and raise prices 10 percent.

            Raising the minimum wage 37% will most surely have an effect, and then 10% two years in a row.

          6. South of Davis

            Tia wrote:

            > What is being sought by the advocates of a minimum
            > wage increase is a minimum at which people who are
            > completely dependent upon their own wages to support
            > themselves and their families

            The “minimum” wage has never been a wage where people have EVER been able to “support themselves and their families”.

            Tia seems to ignore the point that EVERY person trying to support a FAMILY on the minimum wage has made a LONG list of BAD choices (in addition to having BAD “luck”).

            Sadly a few $ hour more will not fix all the problems that people with low intelligence and/or poor judgment have.

          7. Tia Will

            SOD

            “Tia seems to ignore the point that EVERY person trying to support a FAMILY on the minimum wage has made a LONG list of BAD choices (in addition to having BAD “luck”).”

            I don’t ignore this point. I simply don’t agree with it. The majority of bankruptcy in this country (granted I am using only one marker of economic distress) has medical expenses as either the direct cause or a major contributory factor. How is this about making “bad choices”. Also, what is our intent. Do we as a society want the totally innocent dependents of someone who has made “bad choices” or had “bad luck” to go hungry or homeless because they had the “bad luck” to have a parent die or become permanently disabled. Is that really the best we can be ?

          8. South of Davis

            I wrote:

            > Tia seems to ignore the point that EVERY
            > person trying to support a FAMILY on the
            > minimum wage has made a LONG list of
            > BAD choices

            > I don’t ignore this point. I simply don’t
            > agree with it.

            Can you name (or have even heard of) a SINGLE person that has not made a LOT of BAD choices that is trying to support a FAMILY on the current minimum wage?

            > The majority of bankruptcy in this country
            > (granted I am using only one marker of
            > economic distress) has medical expenses
            > as either the direct cause or a major
            > contributory factor.

            This proves my point (Unless you want to argue that going through life without any (or adequate) health insurance is a GOOD idea)…

        2. Davis Progressive

          palin has a point here. after all raising the rates doesn’t just impact that lowest earns but a large strata of wage earners currently between $8 and $13.

          however, will that be mitigated by the ramp up over several years?

    2. TrueBlueDevil

      Yup. It’s not just this one isolated increase (which is huge), it’s the taxes and regulations that have been added over 30 years. This is one more splash in the bucket.

      The erroneous idea that we need a “living wage” to equate to the “minimum wage” is just that.

      $8 an hour is primarily a “training wage” for first time workers, students, and such.

      1. Tia Will

        TBD

        Tell that to the single parents who are attempting to raise children on that wage.
        No, wait, don’t tell it to the mothers, explain to the children how it is ok for them to be hungry or living in a car because of the “mistakes” their parents made.

        1. Sam

          Tia

          I’ve already explained that single parents making minimum wage would receive EIC. So moving their wages up is going to have no net effect on their monthly income. It will increase prices so they will not be able to buy as much. You are advocating for something that is going to hurt single parents!
          Now on the other hand, if you own a house with a fixed mortgage raising the minimum wage will help you. (Your income will increase while your largest monthly payment stays constant.)

        2. South of Davis

          Tia wrote:

          > explain to the children how it is ok for them to be hungry or
          > living in a car because of the “mistakes” their parents made

          Unless you are making this up you will tell us where these hungry children are parked in town so we can tell them that they can get EIC, WIC, Welfare, Free School Breakfast Lunch and Dinner and Section 8 Housing so they can soon be living in the luxury “New Harmony” $500K/unit low income apartment in Davis and learn about even more “programs” to get free stuff so they can get an even newer car (every car I have ever seen parked in the New Harmony parking lot is newer than my car)…

          1. TrueBlueDevil

            We know that 50 percent of people in poverty are single mothers. Why hide from that fact, or promote it as a new lifestyle choice?

            Fact is, some on the right will argue it is hard to motivate someone to work when they get $40,000 or $45,000 a year in tax free bennies. You’re right, asking them to give that up to make $9 or $11 an hour won’t work.

          2. Frankly

            Just like all the poor kids that need fluoride in the water because they cannot get toothpaste or dental care. Some of us went looking for them to provide some help after fluoridating was thankfully killed by the council… and guess what… we could not find any. And those social justice champions that claimed they existed… well let’s just say they went very dark to the offers of help.

            Me thinks this claim of so many needy is HIGHLY overblown. Our most needy have access to many safety net services that increase their standard of living to the top 10% of the global population. Yes there are some struggling to make ends meet. But I doubt that this minimum wage hike is going to help but a tiny percentage of them. Assuming they are not laid-off or have their hours cut by employers unable to support the increase in labor costs, they will feel more well off for a time, and likely build up some consumer debt to reward themselves for their good fortune having folks like Tia forcing their employer to pay them more. And the debt service on the purchase of those consumer goodies combined with the increase in taxation and the fewer public safety net benefits that they qualify for will ensure that they are still stuck in about the same economic circumstances.

            And then it will hit them… nobody is supposed to survive and raise a family on minimum wage. They need to advance up a career ladder to make a better wage. But unfortunately the Democrats have destroyed so much of the job-creating economy that there are much fewer options to advance a career.

        3. Barack Palin

          “Tell that to the single parents who are attempting to raise children on that wage.
          No, wait, don’t tell it to the mothers, explain to the children how it is ok for them to be hungry or living in a car because of the “mistakes” their parents made.”

          Hmmmm….talk about absolutes………..

  2. Tia Will

    Barack Palin

    “If this bill ever passes Texas can look forward to welcoming many more California businesses?”

    Well, that is one of the strengths of a “free market” isn’t it ? We should embrace it !

    Good Governement

    Thanks for the smile !

    1. Barack Palin

      “Well, that is one of the strengths of a “free market” isn’t it ? We should embrace it !”

      Is it a “free market” when an employer is forced to pay a certain wage governed by the city/state that is higher than other competing cities/states?

      1. Davis Progressive

        but everything else is more expensive in california too. it’s more to buy houses, more to do a whole range of other things and people make more money to purchase goods and services.

          1. South of Davis

            TBD wrote:

            > I think we’ll see much more under-the-table work occurring.

            It is already happening, with the help of government regulations BIG business (that give money to politicians) are slowly killing their lower priced competition of SMALL business (that don’t give cash to politicians). At the end of the day the BIG business don’t care about the real little guy that works under the table like the guys in the article below that was in the Chronicle yesterday.

            http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Illicit-auto-shop-in-Oakland-parking-lot-has-5511454.php

  3. Tia Will

    BP

    You clearly did not notice that my tongue was firmly in my cheek.
    We do not have a “free market” in this country , we just like to pretend that we do. There have always been restrictions.
    It is not a “free market” when an “employer is forced to pay…”. It is not a “free market” when farmers are subsidized not to grow certain crops”.
    It is not a “free market” when people must accept jobs that are insufficient to provide for their families since if the
    “free market” is inadequate, then people have no option but to rely on either the government or charity.
    Hardly “free “in either event.

  4. Frankly

    Democrats seem to have the business sense of fleas, and they infest the economy like so many on a dog. The dog scratches himself raw trying to lead a reasonable life. But his health continues a downward slide. His only option is to move away from the where the fleas are located. And then what happens to fleas when there is nothing left to infest?

    Lefties celebrate this news with glee and an uninformed sense that people will be better off. Frankly, lefties are out of their element and hazardous. It is is similar to having the Tea Party driving environmental policy.

    What is our REAL unemployment? It is higher than ever… and it has increased with the rise in minimum wage. With every Dem push to drive up the minimum wage, there are fewer and fewer jobs. Manufacturing that would have otherwise come back from overseas will now stay overseas. New businesses and business expansions that had been on the planning table no longer pencil out due to higher labor costs, and will not happen. Existing companies on the margins will cut workers and cut benefits.

    You keep killing career growth opportunity for young people.

    You lament the fact that there are families trying to live on minimum wage… that is a problem with a broken economy, not too low wages. It is also a problem with the flood of uneducated immigrants… millions of them… driving down wages due to an oversupply of people needing low skilled jobs. And your continued protection of the education status quo also increases the masses of people needing low-skilled jobs.

    A rise in the minimum wage is just another tax on business…. another hit to youth… another feel-good leftie non solution to problems they themselves create.

    Bravo lefties! You are at least keeping up with your stereotype for being business ignoramuses. Meanwhile what do I do with this damn itch you are causing me and other business owners? I feel that growing urge to shrug and leave you to figure out how to loot a land full of moochers and no producers.

    1. Davis Progressive

      “Democrats seem to have the business sense of fleas”

      after all it was democratic ceo’s that caused wall street go belly up. oh wait.

      1. South of Davis

        DP wrote:

        > after all it was democratic ceo’s that caused wall
        > street go belly up. oh wait.

        I’m no fan of sleazy Republican CEOs, but more often than not the people on Wall Street making over a Million a year are Democrats.

        As an example see the link below of the former Goldman Sachs CEO (as well as prominent Democrat) that stole BILLIONS (and never went to jail):

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Corzine

        And let’s not forget “tax cheat Timmy”:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Geithner

        At least Tim Geithner knew a lot about Real Estate oh wait:

        http://boingboing.net/2009/07/30/daily-show-on-the-ho.html

        P.S. The short Daly Show link above is even funnier than their piece on the Davis Toad Tunnel…

      2. TrueBlueDevil

        Frankly wrote: “It is also a problem with the flood of uneducated immigrants… ” – I think you meant uneducated, illegal immigrants.

        Davis Progressive: President Barack Obama has widened the income inequality with his “quantitative easing” which has mainly helped the top one percent, and led to a boom on Wall Street while the economy struggles.

        It was also former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines who helped lead us into a real estate collapse with his disastrous policies and leadership.

        1. Frankly

          Yes.

          CRA

          Too low fed interest rates

          Fannie & Freddie

          Clinton’s overturn of Glass Steagall.

          And the government’s stupid “ownership society”… fixation that everyone is entitled to own a house.

          With some minor exception, it has been Democrats at the government policy levers enabling all of this mess. And by the way… despite SBOX and Frank Dodd, the mess still continues today.

        1. TrueBlueDevil

          Yep. There were a lot of well-paid manufacturing jobs in southern California that moved to Texas, Nevada, Florida, Mexico and China due to higher taxes and thousands of new regulations.

      1. Frankly

        Yum! Brands, Inc., (NYSE: YUM), based in Louisville, Kentucky

        The lower legislature… pretty much on party lines, voted to increase Kentucky’s minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour. Now it is the state senate’s hands.

        I would not be surprised if Yum! announces it will move to Texas or other states that are not planning to exceed the federal minimum wage.

      2. South of Davis

        DP wrote:

        > davis’ taco bell is moving to texas

        No but according to plan the SMALL Business El Mariachi on G Street recently closed forcing anyone on G Street that wants a taco to go to the BIG business Taco Bell…

  5. Topcat

    Once again, David Greenwald has failed to address some of the basic problems with a $15 local minimum wage in Davis. As has been discussed before, such an cost difference to employers will lead to some employers cutting back employees, or not hiring more employees. Some employers that can, will move out of Davis. Some potential employers that might consider locating in Davis will choose not to do so.

    The end result of these moves would be less opportunities for the most disadvantaged and those with the lowest job skills. This includes people with mild disabilities who could benefit greatly from work, It includes people with poor work habits who need a chance to start somewhere so that they can learn better skills. It includes people with criminal records who need to get on the path to legitimate work. It includes young people who need part time and summer jobs to help fund their advancement and to help them learn how to function in the working world.

    The discussion isn’t just about those who are already employed at minimum wage who would get an increase. It should also include those who can’t find work because they are priced out of the market and those who will lose their jobs for the same reason.

    1. South of Davis

      Topcat wrote:

      > Some employers that can, will move out of Davis. Some potential
      > employers that might consider locating in Davis will choose not to do so.

      Many (but not all) that favor the higher minimum wage increase are the same people that are trying to stop the growth of Davis.

      The typical UC employee, state worker, or private sector professional with an advanced degree does not want any more people in Davis (see the last vote to build more houses for the exact percentage) and hates the fact that poor kids are in school with their kids (and even worse trying to get in to the GATE program)…

      Increasing the minimum wage will not only reduce the number of low wage jobs in Davis but drive up the cost of housing in town reducing the number of kids of parents that didn’t go to Princeton, Stanford or another “acceptable” college in the public schools…

      1. Frankly

        The impact is not just the people getting this wage bump.

        Today a $13 per hour employee is likely an entry-level para-professional or apprentice in their initial steps of a career in some higher-skilled role. Or, they might be a more senior/experienced person working in a job/role that started at minimum wage.

        By raising the minimum wage to this level, it causes a number of changes/shifts for these other jobs. Primarily the expectation that they too get a wage increase.

        And for the companies now paying $13 per hour… they suddenly have stronger candidates in their application pool. There are some people with skills unable to find suitable work and comfortable living off public assistance that now see economic opportunity to re-enter the workforce. On the surface this sounds like a good thing. However, we have not done anything to increase the supply of jobs… we have in fact down just the opposite. So, if people with stronger qualifications are attracted to the bottom-rung jobs because we increased the minimum wage, what are the people with weaker qualifications to do?

        What we need are more jobs. And we need more employment mobility. We need portable benefits, and greater incentives for people to go where there are jobs. For example, migrate to North Dakota where the unemployment rate is 3% and there are not enough servers and others.

        With a greater supply of jobs the demand for workers will increase and there will more opportunity for workers to move up to higher-skilled, higher-paying jobs. We increase jobs by investing in economic development.

        What we have here is another example of our ideological divide. The liberal worldview that business and industry is bad… bad for their desired lifestyle, bad for the environment, bad because it leads to income disparity because the business owners make more than the workers.

        For liberals, it is better to have less business and industry and force those remaining to pay people more, and also taxed more so that those without work (and this is fine in a liberal worldview… you should not be forced to work if you don’t want to) would be taken care of by government income redistribution.

        This worldview is half-baked and irrational because it fails to consider that the all the tax-revenue needed to fund the liberal nirvana derives from business economic activity. Liberals always eventually run out of other people’s money and their scheme collapses around them. Always has. Always will.

        Note I am generalizing here… there are a few exceptions.

        The driver for this type of thing (minimum wage increases) is liberal frustration in their inability to effect change while also protecting their desired lifestyle. Because the ultimate solution would be for liberals to go start a business and then pay their employees high wages and give them copious benefits. If more liberals did this, then there would be much less need for minimum wages. The good employees would flock to their business. They would create better products and services… therefor causing other businesses to have to do the same. Wages would be what wages needed to be to attract and retain the qualify of labor required to do the job.

        But liberals don’t start and grow businesses. Frankly, they don’t want to work that hard. They don’t want to put their capital at risk. They have a tremendous fear of failure… worried about what others might say about them behind their back.

        So, instead they worm their way into political power and get their false sense of being relevant in economic matters by throwing rules at those real heroes of the American economy… the producers that actually hire people and give them an opportunity for self-determined prosperity and self-actualization.

        Minimum wage hikes are a very bad idea unless you want a world of less business and less industry and fewer workers. I think that is exactly what liberals want.

        1. TrueBlueDevil

          Frankly, I’ve heard that starting first-time workers at Target in North Dakota are making $17 an hour, and there are many there who are making $100,000 per year. Capitalism and clean Natural Gas!

          The sad, sad irony is that cheap, clean, reliable NG could bring back manufacturing jobs to the US, if not for these onerous and unending demands from the Left.

          1. Frankly

            Yes. God forbid though that we allow fracking in CA! And let’s not build that Keystone Pipeline. And lets also prevent Bakken oil from being transferred by rail.

            But then the lack of good paying jobs is just because those CEOs are pocketing all the profits and outsourcing.

            And the media replays it and all the sheep lap it up.

          2. Barack Palin

            What’s so funny is that these liberal environmentalists don’t realise that fracking is the best thing they currently have going for them.

          3. Davis Progressive

            fracking is something out of another time and another reality. we need to be moving away from carbon based energy.

          4. Frankly

            I think we can rest our case on this point.

            Question – what would the unemployment rate in North Dakota be today if North Dakota adopted California’s liberal-demanded rules about frack drilling in this state?

          5. TrueBlueDevil

            Davis Progressive – I’d think a person like you would back the Kyoto goals, which we never signed. These goal were a very aggressive 20 percent cut in CO2 emissions.

            Well, with clean NG and fracking, we’ve cut our CO2 emissions by 20 percent!

            OK, I get it – you’re for more nuclear power? Not carbon based, and it produces zero CO2! Agreed?

            Frankly – 15%, wages would be far lower, and people would be moving out, not in.

          6. Barack Palin

            “Something to celebrate this Earth Day: carbon dioxide emissions in the United States are at their lowest level in twenty years, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) credits shale development and fracking technologies with this positive development.”

            http://www.cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/barbara-boland/us-co2-emissions-lowest-level-20-years-thanks-fracking

            They just don’t get it Frankly, but we can keep pounding them with info until they do.

          7. Frankly

            I was in Boston this year visiting my wife’s relatives… two Boston University professors… very nice people… a married couple. The subject of fracking came up and they went through the roof… my wife looked at me with that look “don’t go there”, so I didn’t.

            But I had an epiphany at that point. These two are devout and proud atheists… even though the father of the wife of these two had been a Christian Baptist minister… had taken up points of their ideology as their replacement for their lost spirituality. To them fracking was equivalent to the work of the devil. There was no rationalizing the points with them. They put in their pseudo religion “bad” column and that was that.

            So, I’m not sure we make any progress pounding them other that to damage their brand so they win fewer elections. Because religious zealotry in politics is a dangerous thing.

          8. TrueBlueDevil

            Good point. I think if you lead in that we cut CO2 emissions by 20%, you might hook them… but then you have to tell them how!

            Or, you can verify that they are pro nuclear power. Typically, they don’t agree with 80% of the places we get our power from…

        2. Davis Progressive

          “But liberals don’t start and grow businesses. Frankly, they don’t want to work that hard. ”

          thats hogwash there are plenty of liberals who start and grow businesses and there are plenty who work very hard. the author of this article chief among them.

          1. Frankly

            I said I was generalizing. The vast majority of business owners are not liberal.

            It will be interesting to see if the author of this article changes his views if and when he grows to the point that he needs to hire multiple employees, pay greater taxes on his business, his employees and on his personal income, and has to take on debt to fund his business growth. And then if he is successful… watch out… he will be demonized for his success.

            Now again, maybe he will be happy doing all that work for all these years required to build and grow a business and taking on all the personal financial risk and then once he reaches a level of success give up most of the reward to give to his employees. That would be what a good liberal would expect, right? I mean it won’t be good enough that he did all this and provided jobs for people… it would be that he is not paying them enough, or not giving them enough benefits… especially relative to what he makes.

        3. Topcat

          Frankly wrote: “So, if people with stronger qualifications are attracted to the bottom-rung jobs because we increased the minimum wage, what are the people with weaker qualifications to do?”

          Under this scenario, those with low job skills have a number of options. Some maybe able to qualify for welfare and food stamps for a while or disability for a longer term. Some may go into the underground economy and take up selling drugs or prostitution. Some may take up crime such as robbery and burglary. Others may find that panhandling will supply them with plenty of cash.

          Those who advocate for a higher minimum wage never to address the issue of what happens to those with low job skills or partial disabilities who are priced out of the market. David Greenwald completely ignores this issue in his advocacy for a higher local minimum wage.

      2. Topcat

        South of Davis wrote: “Many (but not all) that favor the higher minimum wage increase are the same people that are trying to stop the growth of Davis.

        The typical UC employee, state worker, or private sector professional with an advanced degree does not want any more people in Davis (see the last vote to build more houses for the exact percentage) and hates the fact that poor kids are in school with their kids (and even worse trying to get in to the GATE program)…”

        Yes, this is a legitimate argument in favor of raising the local minimum wage. By reducing employment opportunities for the lowest skilled workers, perhaps we can slow the growth of the city and get rid of some of the undesirable poor people who will need to go elsewhere to find work.

        1. Frankly

          I agree with this. The problem is not only the lack of respect for the rule of law, but it is also a lack of understanding for the traditional American values that founded and developed the greatest nation on God’s green earth. It is the lack of deference to and assimilation into the American culture.

          Here is the way I see it… and Ayn Rand nailed it.

          Liberals are a collection of people that feel disenfranchised, or envious of others having gained more of something, or just chronically disastisfied, or stuck in a look back of unresolved childhood issues that cloud their ongoing views of the world… and in some cases just people once brainwashed into a left idelogical worldview and posessing a dogged determination to never have to admit they are wrong about it. And then there are some without these drivers that just have an irrational need to save other people and so they need a constant supply of people to save.

          Immigrants come to the US these days primarily for economic reasons… and from Latin American countries it is generally for the bottom-rung wages and the social safety net for the poor. And then it is to bring their families for more of the same. What they both (liberals and poor and uneducated immigrants) have in common is a lack of respect for America as it is, as it has been, as it needs to be. Liberals dislike it for their own personal reasons and want it transformed to something that makes them feel more wanted or allows them to better exploit their wants and needs. Immigrants these days just want the money and they too want the US to make them feel more wanted in their immigrant ways… their language, their culture, their values…

          In the history of the world, and even today, we see most revolutions and wars being fought to protect one culture over another. The uniqueness of the US was that immigrants wanted to become American… wanted to adopt American culture and for America to be their new home… wanted to join the producer class. And Americans expected this… immigrants assiminalted… at least by the second generation. They would go off to become producers in the American economy. Half of them Republicans and half of the Democrats (give or take). But now they – the poor and uneducated families – don’t assimilate. They stay more locked into neighborhoods of people of their own country of origin… and more locked into the moocher-looter class into second and third generations. They remain feeling outside of mainstream American success and join liberals in their desires to transform the country into something else.

          Liberals control the Democrat party. And the Democrat Party dominates California. And the Democrat Party dominates California because of poor and uneducated immigrants. As we continue to allow more and more poor and uneducated immigrants (illegal or otherwise), because our economy lacks the growth to allow enough of them to advance into the middle class and beyond (join the producer class), we will continue to expand the moocher-looter class and they will continue to team with liberals and other disenfranchised Americans to transform the country into another failed model of socialism and collectivism.

          Most Republicans and conservatives I know absolutely support immigrant. But in numbers that we can assimilate. And favoring educated immigrants as long as the economy can provide enough jobs and career opportunities for all.

  6. TrueBlueDevil

    This is a 37.5% increase; 10%; and 10%. This will have negative and positive consequences that the authors can’t even imagine. No wonder it was pushed by Leno.

    If these so-called leaders were really worried about the lower class, they’d get serious and offer serious solutions.

    They’d work to reduce single-parent households, which are 50% of those who are “poor”. They’d close the border to millions of illegal immigrants, who drive down wages and benefits, and who depend heavily on the social welfare system. They’d also work to remove silly, unneeded, and harmful regulations.

    Consider the education of big liberal George McGovern, a former US Senator.

    Wikipedia: “McGovern had made several real estate investments in the D.C. area and became interested in hotel operations.[239] In 1988, using the money he had earned from his speeches, the McGoverns bought, renovated, and began running a 150-room inn in Stratford, Connecticut, with the goal of providing a hotel, restaurant and public conference facility.[239][249] It went into bankruptcy in 1990 and closed the following year.[250] In 1992, McGovern’s published reflections on the experience appeared in Wall Street Journal and the Nation’s Restaurant News.[249][251] He attributed part of the failure to the early 1990s recession, but also part to the cost of dealing with federal, state and local regulations that were passed with good intentions but made life difficult for small businesses, and to the cost of dealing with frivolous lawsuits.[249] McGovern wrote, “I … wish that during the years I was in public office I had had this firsthand experience about the difficulties business people face every day. That knowledge would have made me a better U.S. senator and a more understanding presidential contender.”[249]”

    I’ve read where McGovern said he would not have passed half the regulations he did, if he had had this experience and knew how hard running a business was.

    1. Davis Progressive

      “I’ve read where McGovern said he would not have passed half the regulations he did, if he had had this experience and knew how hard running a business was.”

      that’s a fair point. on the other hand, worker wages have been stagnating for too long.

    2. Tia Will

      “They’d work to reduce single-parent households,”

      Since you are as a general rule against the government, or liberals, telling people “what to do”, I would like to know exactly what steps you want to be taken to “reduce single-parent households” ?

  7. Frankly

    One thing for sure with all this leftie activity to increase the minimum wage… count on a new flood of undocumented workers from south of the border. But then that is good for lefties because those people tend to give birth to lots of babies and these babies get to vote and they reliably vote for lefties.

  8. TrueBlueDevil

    I am naturally an optimistic person, but also pragmatic.

    Given this, I figure when amnesty eventually passes, unless it has huge limitations, we may be a one-party nation for 50 years. Democrats will do to other states what they have done to California = thwart business, raise taxes, raise regulations, pass environmental overkill laws, and more. Sadly, we are bringing in tens of millions of people who don’t respect the rule of law, one of many problems. Odds are while the GOP is now in a good spot, they will shoot themselves in the foot.

  9. tribeUSA

    The proposed increase is just a little too much.
    I’d support proposed step increases of $10, $11, and then $12 by 2017. This would bring the minimum wage in line with that in effect in the 1970s (inflation adjusted).

    Like most Americans; I agree that immigration should be cut way back. Instead the oligarchs that advance and steer our politicians are relentless pushing for amnesty for illegals and to increase legal immigration from about 1 million to 2 million per year; to increase downward pressure on wages. Meanwhile new college grads struggle to find work; and there are many qualified people who are looking for work but are long-term unemployed. I would support increasing border enforcement so that fewer than 100,000 per year are able to sneak across the border, and halving the amount of legal immigration from current levels–I suspect the majority of Americans would support such a policy; but then we do not have a government that represents the will of the majority of people, but instead represents the majority of moolah.

  10. TrueBlueDevil

    Seattle recently upped their minimum wage to $15 per hour. Here are some of the results.

    “The Seattle suburb of SeaTac got what they wished for – the minimum wage was raised to $15 – and months later, they’re seeing the ramifications.

    “Here’s what’s happened so far:

    “Managers have taken more responsibilities on themselves, instead of hiring more workers.

    Businesses have laid off workers, or eliminated their plans to hire more.

    Area parking now comes with an added “living-wage surcharge.”

    Hotels have cut employee benefits, free food, and overtime.”

    http://chicksontheright.com/posts/item/25956-so-about-that-minimum-wage-hike-how-s-that-working-out-seattle

    1. Topcat

      TrueBlue Devil wrote: “Businesses have laid off workers, or eliminated their plans to hire more.”

      Perhaps the advocates of the increase in Davis can explain how the laid off workers and the workers who can’t find work would benefit from the increase.

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