California Senate passes $13 minimum wage bill
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 06:36:38 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  California Senate passes $13 minimum wage bill
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: California Senate passes $13 minimum wage bill  (Read 3266 times)
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 15, 2014, 09:40:11 AM »

I'm surprised no one mentioned this from over two weeks ago:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It passed with a very slim majority, so this is far from a sure thing for becoming law. However, the California State Assembly currently has a Democratic Supermajority of 55-24. As I understand it, laws in California require an absolute majority vote for passage, which would mean 41 votes in the Assembly. I don't think Governor Brown has commented on the bill, but I can't see any gain for him by vetoing it.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2014, 10:22:49 AM »

California: producing red-state human development indicators at blue-state prices.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2014, 12:46:09 PM »

Wonderful news!
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 15, 2014, 12:56:31 PM »

I'm intrigued. Obviously minimum incomes are the best way to go, but it will be an interesting experiment, especially on a statewide level where it will be harder to avoid the minimum wage like it would be in Seattle.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2014, 01:34:10 PM »

I'm intrigued. Obviously minimum incomes are the best way to go, but it will be an interesting experiment, especially on a statewide level where it will be harder to avoid the minimum wage like it would be in Seattle.

Min wage is the worst way to go, and the Left's obsession with economic suicide can seemingly be explained by Freudian death wish. Raising minimum wages makes your labor force uncompetitive with other low-cost labor forces (in the US or outside of the US). Furthermore, governments that raise minimum wage abdicate their social responsibility and place it on private sector business. Private businesses are simplified mono-dimensional organizations that exist to maximize profit. They are not equipped or optimized to handle macro-socioeconomic problems.

If the government works to reduce the cost of labor to the private sector, employment and labor force will increase. Full employment will put upward pressure on wages to mitigate the cost of labor subsidization.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2014, 01:37:21 PM »

I'm intrigued. Obviously minimum incomes are the best way to go, but it will be an interesting experiment, especially on a statewide level where it will be harder to avoid the minimum wage like it would be in Seattle.

Min wage is the worst way to go, and the Left's obsession with economic suicide can seemingly be explained by Freudian death wish. Raising minimum wages makes your labor force uncompetitive with other low-cost labor forces (in the US or outside of the US). Furthermore, governments that raise minimum wage abdicate their social responsibility and place it on private sector business. Private businesses are simplified mono-dimensional organizations that exist to maximize profit. They are not equipped or optimized to handle macro-socioeconomic problems.

If the government works to reduce the cost of labor to the private sector, employment and labor force will increase. Full employment will put upward pressure on wages to mitigate the cost of labor subsidization.

So do you suggest abolishing the minimum wage and establishing sweatshops to better compete with China?
Logged
Cassius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,591


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 15, 2014, 01:44:44 PM »
« Edited: June 15, 2014, 02:06:48 PM by Former Assemblyman Cassius »

I'm intrigued. Obviously minimum incomes are the best way to go, but it will be an interesting experiment, especially on a statewide level where it will be harder to avoid the minimum wage like it would be in Seattle.

Min wage is the worst way to go, and the Left's obsession with economic suicide can seemingly be explained by Freudian death wish. Raising minimum wages makes your labor force uncompetitive with other low-cost labor forces (in the US or outside of the US). Furthermore, governments that raise minimum wage abdicate their social responsibility and place it on private sector business. Private businesses are simplified mono-dimensional organizations that exist to maximize profit. They are not equipped or optimized to handle macro-socioeconomic problems.

If the government works to reduce the cost of labor to the private sector, employment and labor force will increase. Full employment will put upward pressure on wages to mitigate the cost of labor subsidization.

So do you suggest abolishing the minimum wage and establishing sweatshops to better compete with China?

Well, that probably would be one of the most effective ways of stopping firms from outsourcing jobs in certain sectors (though most of those jobs have probably gone anyway). From a purely theoretical standpoint.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 15, 2014, 02:21:51 PM »

I'm intrigued. Obviously minimum incomes are the best way to go, but it will be an interesting experiment, especially on a statewide level where it will be harder to avoid the minimum wage like it would be in Seattle.

Min wage is the worst way to go, and the Left's obsession with economic suicide can seemingly be explained by Freudian death wish. Raising minimum wages makes your labor force uncompetitive with other low-cost labor forces (in the US or outside of the US). Furthermore, governments that raise minimum wage abdicate their social responsibility and place it on private sector business. Private businesses are simplified mono-dimensional organizations that exist to maximize profit. They are not equipped or optimized to handle macro-socioeconomic problems.

If the government works to reduce the cost of labor to the private sector, employment and labor force will increase. Full employment will put upward pressure on wages to mitigate the cost of labor subsidization.

So do you suggest abolishing the minimum wage and establishing sweatshops to better compete with China?
Because we would somehow have labor costs the same as China. Do you understand anything about economics? Yet alone how standard of livings increase?

Under right wing race to the bottom economics, yes, their goal would be to eventually get the standard of living as low (if not lower) as China, since that means more profit for the plutocrats.
Logged
henster
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,976


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 15, 2014, 02:24:03 PM »

Brown will veto if it makes past the House.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,258
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2014, 02:49:50 PM »

Brown will veto if it makes past the House.

That's surprising news. Link?
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 15, 2014, 03:00:24 PM »

Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2014, 03:07:42 PM »

I'm intrigued. Obviously minimum incomes are the best way to go, but it will be an interesting experiment, especially on a statewide level where it will be harder to avoid the minimum wage like it would be in Seattle.

Min wage is the worst way to go, and the Left's obsession with economic suicide can seemingly be explained by Freudian death wish. Raising minimum wages makes your labor force uncompetitive with other low-cost labor forces (in the US or outside of the US). Furthermore, governments that raise minimum wage abdicate their social responsibility and place it on private sector business. Private businesses are simplified mono-dimensional organizations that exist to maximize profit. They are not equipped or optimized to handle macro-socioeconomic problems.

If the government works to reduce the cost of labor to the private sector, employment and labor force will increase. Full employment will put upward pressure on wages to mitigate the cost of labor subsidization.

Let's take a moment to discuss who actually makes the minimum wage.

By far, the largest group of folks in the U.S. making the minimum wage, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012), are in "Food Prep and serving related occupations." McDonalds workers, basically. None of these jobs can be lost to China, and automation has only made a marginal impact here. Fast food isn't fast anymore if you need to wait for the guy in front of you to figure out how to use some touchscreen to order for his 4 kids. This grouping contains 1,550,000 million workers.

Next largest group: "Sales and related occupations." This would be your Walmart employee. Unless you think people are going to be driving to China to go to the supermarket, these jobs aren't going anywhere either. Higher costs at big box retail may push jobs to Amazon and the Internet, but that's just going to shift jobs between sectors, increasing demand for local warehouse workers, transportation services, and delivery. This grouping contains 546,0000 workers.

The third largest group: "Personal care and related occupations." These are non-skilled jobs like maids and (non-medical) elder care. These service jobs need to be where the work is, and cannot be outsourced overseas or to robots, as robots eat old peoples' medicine for fuel. This grouping contains 268,000 workers.

The fourth largest group: "Transportation and material moving occupations." As said, outsourcing would likely grow this group, which contains 240,000 workers.

The fifth largest group: "Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance workers." This is the dude who wipes down machines at gyms and the guy who makes sure the bathroom has toilet paper. Many businesses hire outside services to do these jobs, rather than have their own employees do them since the work is often distasteful. This grouping contains another 231,000 workers.

There seems to be some bizarre outdated fantasy that these minimum wage jobs are in manufacturing. They're not. And in any case, the costs of outsourcing to China -- and transporting goods back from overseas -- have been on the rise for some time. Quality control, meanwhile, is a major problem -- I know plenty of people who actively avoid products that are "made in China" due to past stories about lead and other poisons being used on child toys, in dog treats, and dishware. Besides, labor is an increasingly small component of the things we buy and use, and some companies (like Google) believe that spending a few extra cents for the "made in the USA" label is a competitive advantage.
Logged
Horus
Sheliak5
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,564
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 15, 2014, 03:17:01 PM »

Anyone have the vote breakdown?
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 15, 2014, 03:59:26 PM »

So do you suggest abolishing the minimum wage and establishing sweatshops to better compete with China?

Is the argument really so complicated that you are incapable of mustering a reasonable counterpoint? You are presumably a left-leaning voter. Did we get sweatshops when we implemented welfare, food stamps, unemployment, etc?

We can pay people $30,000 in federal/state benefits, or we can pay the same person $15,000 federal/state benefits, and let them earn the other $15,000 at a minimum wage job. We've chosen the former for a half-century, and we've received a permanent underclass for our efforts.

Granted, reform is difficult at the state level, but CA is already working towards the workfare arrangement via Medicaid expansion. Min wage is a silly counterproductive policy, aimed at assuaging land lords who complain that their tenants can't make rent.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 15, 2014, 04:02:15 PM »

So do you suggest abolishing the minimum wage and establishing sweatshops to better compete with China?

Is the argument really so complicated that you are incapable of mustering a reasonable counterpoint? You are presumably a left-leaning voter. Did we get sweatshops when we implemented welfare, food stamps, unemployment, etc?

We can pay people $30,000 in federal/state benefits, or we can pay the same person $15,000 federal/state benefits, and let them earn the other $15,000 at a minimum wage job. We've chosen the former for a half-century, and we've received a permanent underclass for our efforts.

Granted, reform is difficult at the state level, but CA is already working towards the workfare arrangement via Medicaid expansion. Min wage is a silly counterproductive policy, aimed at assuaging land lords who complain that their tenants can't make rent.

I'm pretty sure the fact that you support any welfare programs at all (even ones with a work requirement) would get you kicked out of the Texas Republican Party.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 15, 2014, 04:20:42 PM »

Let's take a moment to discuss who actually makes the minimum wage.......

What you're proposing is to focus benefits narrowly, on a small number of workers, and focus the costs narrowly, on a small number of industries. From the outset, you're fighting an uphill battle against political economics, and the underlying motivation is probably just vindictive policy against retailers and fast food providers, both of whom are blamed for negative externalities, like outsourcing and obesity.

Minimum wage doesn't just affect the current min wage earners. It affects the entire pay scale. The cost multiplier creates cost-push inflation and reduces consumption. Also consider the budget and substitution effects. Do you think the automobile industry expected 20-somethings to swap new cars for $500 smartphones with $150 monthly service fees?

The choice is not min wage or no min wage. You're picking from a field of possible policies. If you choose to continue the existing policies by foiling against the absence of any action, you're just supporting the status quo.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,601
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 15, 2014, 04:24:01 PM »

The choice is not min wage or no min wage. You're picking from a field of possible policies. If you choose to continue the existing policies by foiling against the absence of any action, you're just supporting the status quo.

Well, we have to guess your positions. You complain about status quo, complain about everything, yet you don't propose any solution.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 15, 2014, 04:32:08 PM »

I'm pretty sure the fact that you support any welfare programs at all (even ones with a work requirement) would get you kicked out of the Texas Republican Party.

Texas suppresses the cost of living by using high property tax rates to control median home values, and by supplying an abundance of lane-miles so people can sprawl. Texas prefers to suppress costs, though the state spends plenty of money subsidizing costs, like the generous abatement Plano granted to Toyota.

California can't raise property rates to keep median home prices in check, and they can't sprawl into the Pacific or the desert because the living conditions are less than optimal. We are talking about economics, not politics.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 15, 2014, 04:45:25 PM »

Well, we have to guess your positions. You complain about status quo, complain about everything, yet you don't propose any solution.

says every status-quo liberal who has ever lived.

If the policy question were "how do we keep the floors in Congress clean?", liberals would propose doubling the cleaning staff and supplies budget. Republicans would spend $200 bucks to put door mats and snow scrubs at every entry.

Republican solutions are often anti-climactic and indirect. They don't satisfy the liberal desire for pantomime, pomp, and circus; but that doesn't mean Republican policy directives are non-existent.
Logged
Meursault
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 771
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 15, 2014, 04:52:24 PM »

You are literally a 1970s Torie.

Get better policies. And better metaphors.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: June 15, 2014, 05:07:52 PM »

Moderate, so are you saying we should be holding employers ransom to gratuitous wage hikes out of the knowledge that their employees' jobs can't be outsourced? That's atrocious. After a while, we'll figure out a way to replace those jobs, don't you worry.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,258
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: June 15, 2014, 05:14:38 PM »

Let's take a moment to discuss who actually makes the minimum wage.......

What you're proposing is to focus benefits narrowly, on a small number of workers, and focus the costs narrowly, on a small number of industries. From the outset, you're fighting an uphill battle against political economics, and the underlying motivation is probably just vindictive policy against retailers and fast food
 providers, both of whom are blamed for negative externalities, like outsourcing and obesity.

Minimum wage doesn't just affect the current min wage earners. It affects the entire pay scale. The cost multiplier creates cost-push inflation and reduces consumption. Also consider the budget and substitution effects. Do you think the automobile industry expected 20-somethings to swap new cars for $500 smartphones with $150 monthly service fees?

The choice is not min wage or no min wage. You're picking from a field of possible policies. If you choose to continue the existing policies by foiling against the absence of any action, you're just supporting the status quo.
I tend to ignore your posts where you are 2+2=5 factually incorrect--there's just too many to respond to--but claiming that rising wages REDUCES consumption is too laughable to ignore.

Good point on the dangers of inflation. A leading problem needing tackled at this time in our history, right after getting rid of President Carter and dsico.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: June 15, 2014, 07:19:21 PM »

I tend to ignore your posts where you are 2+2=5 factually incorrect--there's just too many to respond to--but claiming that rising wages REDUCES consumption is too laughable to ignore.

Good point on the dangers of inflation. A leading problem needing tackled at this time in our history, right after getting rid of President Carter and dsico.

I didn't say it reduces aggregate consumption. I said it creates cost-push in the targeted industries, which reduces consumption (obviously within the industry experiencing cost push). The workers may be putting themselves out of work or cutting back their own hours.

Thanks for the nugget of wisdom about the lack of catastrophic inflation in housing, healthcare, education, and fuel. I'm sure the Federal Reserve Bank is manipulating the data to show that the California housing price index is 500% higher than it was in 1980.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CASTHPI
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,258
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: June 16, 2014, 05:40:50 PM »

I tend to ignore your posts where you are 2+2=5 factually incorrect--there's just too many to respond to--but claiming that rising wages REDUCES consumption is too laughable to ignore.

Good point on the dangers of inflation. A leading problem needing tackled at this time in our history, right after getting rid of President Carter and dsico.

I didn't say it reduces aggregate consumption. I said it creates cost-push in the targeted industries, which reduces consumption (obviously within the industry experiencing cost push). The workers may be putting themselves out of work or cutting back their own hours.

Thanks for the nugget of wisdom about the lack of catastrophic inflation in housing, healthcare, education, and fuel. I'm sure the Federal Reserve Bank is manipulating the data to show that the California housing price index is 500% higher than it was in 1980.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CASTHPI

Because of increases in the minimum wage? Huh

Bizarre.....
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: June 17, 2014, 04:30:07 AM »

I tend to ignore your posts where you are 2+2=5 factually incorrect--there's just too many to respond to--but claiming that rising wages REDUCES consumption is too laughable to ignore.

Good point on the dangers of inflation. A leading problem needing tackled at this time in our history, right after getting rid of President Carter and dsico.

I didn't say it reduces aggregate consumption. I said it creates cost-push in the targeted industries, which reduces consumption (obviously within the industry experiencing cost push). The workers may be putting themselves out of work or cutting back their own hours.

Thanks for the nugget of wisdom about the lack of catastrophic inflation in housing, healthcare, education, and fuel. I'm sure the Federal Reserve Bank is manipulating the data to show that the California housing price index is 500% higher than it was in 1980.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CASTHPI

Making $13 an hour, it's still a lot easier to eat lunch at McDonald's than eat properly.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.06 seconds with 12 queries.