CA: Deal Reached to Raise Minimum Wage to $15/hour
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:55:36 PM
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)
  CA: Deal Reached to Raise Minimum Wage to $15/hour
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Author Topic: CA: Deal Reached to Raise Minimum Wage to $15/hour  (Read 4158 times)
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: March 28, 2016, 05:27:19 PM »

Some the problem blocking cooperation on the minimum raise is the relative reaction times of the two parties. I noted the recent timeline of proposals in my earlier post. In IL by early 2015 the Pubs were presenting minimum wage increases more aggressive than Obama's initial 2013 proposals - $11/hour by 2020. Unfortunately they were well behind the Dems at that point that were all in for $15. Net result - nothing happened.

I've seen this often - progressives will present an idea and complain that conservatives aren't with it. Conservatives are inherently, um conservative, so it takes them a while to come around. By the time the conservatives get on board, even if only in a couple of years, progressives have sometimes pushed the original idea beyond the point of reasonableness. They are then so far apart that the sides can't talk about the original, reasonable request.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,962
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: March 28, 2016, 05:28:36 PM »

I've seen this often - progressives will present an idea and complain that conservatives aren't with it. Conservatives are inherently, um conservative, so it takes them a while to come around. By the time the conservatives get on board, even if only in a couple of years, progressives have sometimes pushed the original idea beyond the point of reasonableness. They are then so far apart that the sides can't talk about the original, reasonable request.

In the US, more often that not what happens is the exact opposite (see Obamacare, which is used to be the GOP's alternative to single-payer).
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: March 28, 2016, 05:42:06 PM »


Uh, yes. Agricultural work is exhausting and I don't see why it shouldn't be compensated appropriately.


So why wouldn't supermarkets start ordering even more of their produce than they already are from Chile and Argentina? The importation costs would be more than offset by the labor savings.

If a Chilean strawberry is retailing 29 cents cheaper than a Californian one in a supermarket, the consumer's going to pick it every time.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: March 28, 2016, 05:44:00 PM »

I've seen this often - progressives will present an idea and complain that conservatives aren't with it. Conservatives are inherently, um conservative, so it takes them a while to come around. By the time the conservatives get on board, even if only in a couple of years, progressives have sometimes pushed the original idea beyond the point of reasonableness. They are then so far apart that the sides can't talk about the original, reasonable request.

In the US, more often that not what happens is the exact opposite (see Obamacare, which is used to be the GOP's alternative to single-payer).

As I have detailed on other threads, Obamacare is not a counterexample. There were already bipartisan bills for universal coverage in 2009, but rewarding election year supporters got in their way. Even if it was, my point stands and a proposal that was significantly different than the discussions then underway was going to need more time to move conservatives even as Obamacare evolved further from the form in which it was presented in early 2009. It didn't take the time to converge with other proposals then extant. It was rushed to beat a Senate filibuster.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,962
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: March 28, 2016, 06:09:16 PM »


Uh, yes. Agricultural work is exhausting and I don't see why it shouldn't be compensated appropriately.


So why wouldn't supermarkets start ordering even more of their produce than they already are from Chile and Argentina? The importation costs would be more than offset by the labor savings.

If a Chilean strawberry is retailing 29 cents cheaper than a Californian one in a supermarket, the consumer's going to pick it every time.

I'd rather have Chile gradually move to American working conditions than the opposite.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: March 28, 2016, 06:34:51 PM »

I've seen this often - progressives will present an idea and complain that conservatives aren't with it. Conservatives are inherently, um conservative, so it takes them a while to come around. By the time the conservatives get on board, even if only in a couple of years, progressives have sometimes pushed the original idea beyond the point of reasonableness. They are then so far apart that the sides can't talk about the original, reasonable request.

Well in all fairness, I meant both parties with ideas from both sides. I have a set of preferences in policy that align with the Democratic party, but my goal is more prosperity and far less income inequality. If a mix of certain conservative ideas with liberal ideas can achieve that, then I have no problem. I'd like to think this is something many politicians could agree with.

So with that in mind, while I favor a minimum wage, I'd rather have an economy that is good enough where we don't really even need to fight over the minimum wage in the first place. However, I'm just sick of hearing about supply-side economics and throwing benefits to the wealthy with the idea that it will "spur growth". That's something that I will likely never come around to myself.
Logged
Lyin' Steve
SteveMcQueen
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,310


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: March 28, 2016, 07:20:23 PM »

California's economy was already struggling.  Their unemployment rate is 117% that of the United States as a whole.  Colusa county has a 25%+ unemployment rate, with a per capita income of $14,000.  Let's see if Jerry Brown can get it up to 50%!

Was this Brown's fault or another one of those disastrous referendums?
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,614
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: March 29, 2016, 01:59:33 AM »

As I have detailed on other threads, Obamacare is not a counterexample. There were already bipartisan bills for universal coverage in 2009, but rewarding election year supporters got in their way. Even if it was, my point stands and a proposal that was significantly different than the discussions then underway was going to need more time to move conservatives even as Obamacare evolved further from the form in which it was presented in early 2009. It didn't take the time to converge with other proposals then extant. It was rushed to beat a Senate filibuster.


Yeah, it was "rushed" after "only" 6 months of deliberations where Democrats constantly watered down the bill only for the Republicans to move even further the goalposts.
Not to mention that Mike Enzi later admitted that they were negotiating in bad faith and never intended to support the bill, no matter how many concessions they extracted.
That's some nice revisionist bullcrap you got there.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: March 29, 2016, 07:06:07 AM »

As I have detailed on other threads, Obamacare is not a counterexample. There were already bipartisan bills for universal coverage in 2009, but rewarding election year supporters got in their way. Even if it was, my point stands and a proposal that was significantly different than the discussions then underway was going to need more time to move conservatives even as Obamacare evolved further from the form in which it was presented in early 2009. It didn't take the time to converge with other proposals then extant. It was rushed to beat a Senate filibuster.


Yeah, it was "rushed" after "only" 6 months of deliberations where Democrats constantly watered down the bill only for the Republicans to move even further the goalposts.
Not to mention that Mike Enzi later admitted that they were negotiating in bad faith and never intended to support the bill, no matter how many concessions they extracted.
That's some nice revisionist bullcrap you got there.

Any watering down and concessions made after the summer 2009 recess had nothing to do with Pub demands. Those were to respond to demands from reluctant Dems. I was referring to negotiations based on other bills like Wyden-Bennett which took place before the summer of 2009. The summer recess was the watershed when the members went back to districts and got an earful from opponents at town halls. Yes, that hardened Pub opposition and pretty much ended debate along the lines being drafted for that year. I stand by my claims that by keeping the employer mandate in the bill (the part most detested by the Chamber of Commerce and ironically the part that most kept the plan from being universal coverage) the Dems cut off their best chance to rebuild support across the aisle at a later date.

I also stand by my timeline and the Dems strategy in the Senate to pass Obamacare. After the death of Kennedy in Aug 2009 the Senate Dems knew the clock was ticking. Rather than slowing down and trying to craft a truly bipartisan bill as the furor from the summer wore off, they opted to accelerate and go for a cloture vote on strict party lines in the same year. That succeeded on Dec 23, 2009 after making changes to get the last couple of Dems on board. The election of Scott Brown the following month ended the filibuster-proof majority.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,614
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: March 29, 2016, 07:18:26 AM »

Any watering down and concessions made after the summer 2009 recess had nothing to do with Pub demands. Those were to respond to demands from reluctant Dems. I was referring to negotiations based on other bills like Wyden-Bennett which took place before the summer of 2009. The summer recess was the watershed when the members went back to districts and got an earful from opponents at town halls. Yes, that hardened Pub opposition and pretty much ended debate along the lines being drafted for that year. I stand by my claims that by keeping the employer mandate in the bill (the part most detested by the Chamber of Commerce and ironically the part that most kept the plan from being universal coverage) the Dems cut off their best chance to rebuild support across the aisle at a later date.

I also stand by my timeline and the Dems strategy in the Senate to pass Obamacare. After the death of Kennedy in Aug 2009 the Senate Dems knew the clock was ticking. Rather than slowing down and trying to craft a truly bipartisan bill as the furor from the summer wore off, they opted to accelerate and go for a cloture vote on strict party lines in the same year. That succeeded on Dec 23, 2009 after making changes to get the last couple of Dems on board. The election of Scott Brown the following month ended the filibuster-proof majority.

Whatever makes you sleep at night dude. Apparently in your alternate reality the scorched earth opposition to Obama didn't start from day 1 of his presidency.

And of course proposing what is essentialy Romneycare wasn't bipartisan enough. Apparently the Democrats should have adopted the Republican alternative. There isn't one of course even today, 7 years later, but who cares?
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 #60 on: March 29, 2016, 07:18:32 AM »

Inflation is not a bad thing per se. Sure, nobody wants to go back to the levels of the 70s and 80s, but inflation in the West has been moribund since the 1990s and that's what contributed to the widening inequality.

We've been through this before, Tony. Smiley
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: March 29, 2016, 07:46:14 AM »

Any watering down and concessions made after the summer 2009 recess had nothing to do with Pub demands. Those were to respond to demands from reluctant Dems. I was referring to negotiations based on other bills like Wyden-Bennett which took place before the summer of 2009. The summer recess was the watershed when the members went back to districts and got an earful from opponents at town halls. Yes, that hardened Pub opposition and pretty much ended debate along the lines being drafted for that year. I stand by my claims that by keeping the employer mandate in the bill (the part most detested by the Chamber of Commerce and ironically the part that most kept the plan from being universal coverage) the Dems cut off their best chance to rebuild support across the aisle at a later date.

I also stand by my timeline and the Dems strategy in the Senate to pass Obamacare. After the death of Kennedy in Aug 2009 the Senate Dems knew the clock was ticking. Rather than slowing down and trying to craft a truly bipartisan bill as the furor from the summer wore off, they opted to accelerate and go for a cloture vote on strict party lines in the same year. That succeeded on Dec 23, 2009 after making changes to get the last couple of Dems on board. The election of Scott Brown the following month ended the filibuster-proof majority.

Whatever makes you sleep at night dude. Apparently in your alternate reality the scorched earth opposition to Obama didn't start from day 1 of his presidency.

And of course proposing what is essentialy Romneycare wasn't bipartisan enough. Apparently the Democrats should have adopted the Republican alternative. There isn't one of course even today, 7 years later, but who cares?

No, I'm suggesting they should have stayed in the framework of Wyden-Bennett, kept the individual mandate and ditched the employer mandate in favor of true universal coverage. That was the bipartisan alternative when Obama took office.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: March 29, 2016, 08:24:12 AM »

To tie my point about Obamacare back to the thread, we need to keep in mind that just because an action at the state level is bipartisan, it doesn't mean that Congress will treat it as such. Congress has its own dynamics independent of the states. Obamacare may have been derived from Romneycare, but bipartisan groups in Congress had been working in other directions prior to the 2008 election. Any MA bipartisanship on that issue was not going to translate to DC. Similarly in 2014 MI passed a bipartisan effort to increase the minimum wage. That does not automatically mean a similar bill would be bipartisan in DC. It only becomes bipartisan if the sponsor has identified a bipartisan group in Congress that wants to work along those lines.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: March 29, 2016, 08:49:41 AM »

Well, so much for trying to get legal workers in California agriculture.  Agriculture is largely hard labor and you're not going to find legal workers willing to do it for minimum wage.  Either otherwise legal workers are going to be getting paid off the books so as to avoid the taxman or illegal workers will be getting paid off the books so as to avoid the ICEman. Strawberries picked at $20/hour or more are not going to be competitive with berries picked elsewhere.  On the other hand, killing off the California agriculture industry would do a lot to solve California's water problems.
They don't care about things like that, this is a victory, man, don't...ahem....rain on their parade.

and I didn't consider how this was going to affect me earlier.  So now I'm going to pay 10% more for strawberries in Feb and they are going to come from Argentina?
More likely Chile or Florida, but yeah.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,614
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: March 29, 2016, 10:08:27 AM »

To tie my point about Obamacare back to the thread, we need to keep in mind that just because an action at the state level is bipartisan, it doesn't mean that Congress will treat it as such. Congress has its own dynamics independent of the states. Obamacare may have been derived from Romneycare, but bipartisan groups in Congress had been working in other directions prior to the 2008 election. Any MA bipartisanship on that issue was not going to translate to DC. Similarly in 2014 MI passed a bipartisan effort to increase the minimum wage. That does not automatically mean a similar bill would be bipartisan in DC. It only becomes bipartisan if the sponsor has identified a bipartisan group in Congress that wants to work along those lines.

Either you are naive of you are pretty good at pretending to be. The problem for Republicans wasn't the policy but the politics. Obama himself was eager to have them on board, the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies begged them to take part in the writing of the bill.
But they determined even before Obama was sworn in that they will give him no aid or comfort whatsoever. Their goal as Mitch McConnell proudly said was to make Obama a one-term president and denying him any kind of legislative victory was instrumental to their plan.

If you really think that Democrats backing off on mandate would suddenly make Republicans vote for Obamacare then you're living in a fantasy world. Their opposition was so shameless that even supposedly serious people like Grasssley embraced Palin's rhetoric about "death panels". So don't give me this BS about Obama and the Democrats not being bipartisan enough. Your party decided to blow up the system in order to whip up its base. And today it's reaping the rewards of this strategy in the form of TRUMP and Cruz being the frontrunners for the nomination.  
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,962
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: March 29, 2016, 12:26:23 PM »

Inflation is not a bad thing per se. Sure, nobody wants to go back to the levels of the 70s and 80s, but inflation in the West has been moribund since the 1990s and that's what contributed to the widening inequality.

We've been through this before, Tony. Smiley

Since that thread concluded with the idea that even 70s levels didn't qualify as "hyperinflation", it only strengthens my point.
Logged
rob in cal
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,978
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: March 31, 2016, 10:04:37 AM »

    Assuming this passes, and our restaurant is not exempt from it, it will be interesting to see what happens.  The extra wages would put us into the red profit wise, so the two main counter-measures to this would be labor cut-backs and price increases.  There is some margin for labor cutbacks at our restaurant, though this leads to weaker customer service, but the main countermeasure will of course be price increases and I'm sure they will be coming, as they have in the past as minimum wage has gone up over the last years.   
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: March 31, 2016, 10:36:07 AM »

Am I the only one who doesn't think this is all that huge?  I mean, we're talking about 2022 here.  While it's true that with inflation at current rates, that is a significant increase, if inflation rises at all (which I think is fairly probable), it won't be that radical of a wage increase.
Logged
Derpist
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 997
Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -2.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: April 02, 2016, 01:37:56 AM »

Just another example of liberal elites in San Francisco and LA finding an excuse to finally exterminate those pesky proles in the inland. There is no economic universe where setting the minimum wage higher than a community's average wage doesn't end in disaster. But the barristas in San Francisco don't care - and their customers are probably excited. I'm starting to think E.G. Thompson was right about exterminism as the true ideology of the bourgeosie.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: April 02, 2016, 10:04:52 AM »

I have no problem paying a lot for strawberries in Feb, I'm often shocked how cheap fresh fruit is in the middle of the country in the middle of winter.  I wonder, "how the hell is anybody making any money off of 49 cents/lb bananas?".  Seems like they should cost a lot more.  I understand this is because the people picking my fruit are getting paid jacksquat.  I think they should be paid better wages and my fruits should cost more, which would happen if we actually cared about illegal immigration.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: April 02, 2016, 03:16:29 PM »

I have no problem paying a lot for strawberries in Feb, I'm often shocked how cheap fresh fruit is in the middle of the country in the middle of winter.  I wonder, "how the hell is anybody making any money off of 49 cents/lb bananas?".  Seems like they should cost a lot more.  I understand this is because the people picking my fruit are getting paid jacksquat.  I think they should be paid better wages and my fruits should cost more, which would happen if we actually cared about illegal immigration.

This is one of the most notable differences when grocery shopping compared to my 1960's childhood. We were quite constrained by the choice of fruits and veggies based on the time of year. Out of season food was out of our middle class price range. The year round availability of the same menu at roughly the same price, is something my kids enjoyed that I never did. I'm not sure the public would accept going back to the fresh choices from 50 years ago.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: April 12, 2016, 07:27:33 AM »

Big Labor's deal to make sure unions were not affected by the minimum wage are starting to piss some union members off for some reason.  They don't like getting paid less than non-union people.

link - LA Times
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Good job lefties, couching a trick to get more shop unionized inside a "free money for poor people" law.  You sneaky bastards.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: April 12, 2016, 04:42:25 PM »

The increase in inflation this causes allows the working class to save up money for when deflation begins to occur when businesses start firing workers more. Raising the minimum wage slowly helps the working class, at least in the short term of the next three to eight years.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: April 13, 2016, 07:24:01 PM »

Deadman, if you bothered to read the law, what's going on is that instead of all cash, the union has opted to negotiate for employee benefits in lieu of cash. One can argue whether the resulting package is a good one, but so long as the net effect is to make total compensation larger than the minimum wage, I see no problem.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: April 13, 2016, 09:19:07 PM »

If a side effect is a hundred more union shops in the state, who cares if a fraction of union people (and everybody not in or around the big cities) get screwed a little.


...but like I said in my first post, good for them, the rest of us can see how it goes.  States experimenting is a good thing.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« 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 0.07 seconds with 12 queries.