Cali raises minimum wage to 10$ an hour

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**hotsauceman1**

YAY, MORE MONEY.
BOOO FOR IT TAKING AFFECT IN 2016
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/25/us-usa-california-minimumwage-idUSBRE98O0U920130925

The law raises minimum pay in the most populous U.S. state from its current rate of $8 per hour to $9 by July 2014, and $10 by January 2016, well above the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.

The measure won support from Democrats, who wanted to help low-wage workers in a state where the cost of living is among the highest in the nation, passing the California state Senate by a vote of 26-11 and the Assembly by a 51-25 vote. But it was opposed by many Republicans, who said it would hurt small businesses and ultimately cost some low-wage workers their jobs.

Democrats in California control large majorities in both houses of the state legislature. But the party has charted a more centrist path than many expected, fearing backlash from voters in moderate and conservative districts, and the minimum wage hike did not initially seem poised to pass.

Brown, protective of the state's tenuous economic recovery, initially opposed the bill but then agreed to support it after leaders of both houses of the legislature agreed to put off the effective date of the increase until 2016.

Raising wages for the poorest workers is a "wonderful thing," Brown said at a bill-signing ceremony in Los Angeles.

"It's my goal and it's my moral responsibility to do what I can to make our society more harmonious, to make our social fabric tighter and closer and to work toward a solidarity that every day appears to become more distant," he said.

INCOME GAP

State Assemblyman Luis Alejo, the bill's author, said it would help working people pay for necessities in a state where rising costs have long outpaced wage increases for the poor and working class.

"We have created a system where we pay workers less but need them to spend more," said Alejo in a statement. "That causes middle-class families to fall down the economic ladder. It's the reason our middle class is shrinking and the reason we are facing the largest gap between upper- and lower-income Californians in at least 30 years."

No state currently pays $10 per hour to minimum-wage workers, and California had been among a number of states looking to increase minimum wages to at least that level, according to the National Employment Law Project. The minimum hourly wage in the state had stagnated after rising to $8 in 2008.

Republican Brian Jones, who represents the San Diego County community of Santee, said the increase will make California even more unfriendly to business than he believes it already is.

"I'm afraid the intentions of the author will backfire, and this will hurt the middle class and working poor the most," Jones said in a statement on Wednesday.

The U.S. enacted its first minimum wage in 1938, during the last years of the Great Depression. Today, debate continues on whether government should mandate increasing pay for low-wage workers.

"To cover the costs of this increase, employers will have to cut hours and hire fewer workers," said Assembly Republican leader Connie Conway. "Our state unemployment is still higher than the national average. The legislature should be taking steps to create more high-paying jobs, not penalizing the people who need the help the most."

The state that currently has the highest minimum wage is Washington, where employers must pay at least $9.19 per hour. That could rise to above $10 an hour by 2016, because it is set to increase with certain indicators of inflation.

**whembly**

Now that's sensible... gives the industry time to adapt.

**djones520**

So... all of the employees who had earned raises above new minimum wage employees... I wonder if their pay will scale, or if they'll be bumped to $10 and left, there-by nullifying the companies statement of saying "thanks for being not a waste of air".

**hotsauceman1**

But I want my extra 2$ an hour. :(

**djones520**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
But I want my extra 2$ an hour. :(

That's cool, but all those arguments about how it's not gonna hurt things... well, just to put it this way, when I worked at Taco Bell I got myself up to the "Crew Lead" position, which was basically above minimum wage worker, but below shift manager. Min wage at the time was $5.15, I was getting paid $6.55. So, if this happened, would my pay be scaled to $12.00, or in an effort to save costs, would the company had kept my pay at $10 with the rest of the guys?

**c0j1r0**

Cool, now people can live mildly comfortably by working at McDonalds for the rest of their lives. Because that it takes SO much skill to work a cash register.

I made that much when i was about 16 because I worked for a construction company and learned a trade that takes skill to do. Someone who is too lazy to learn a skill shouldn't get the same pay that I made when I went through a lot of hard work to learn how to do something. This will likely raise the price of EVERYTHING to compensate and we'll be right back where we started. People with certain skill-sets will demand more money, which will raise the cost of household items to compensate. Welcome to inflation.

**Easy E**

djones520 wrote:
So... all of the employees who had earned raises above new minimum wage employees... I wonder if their pay will scale, or if they'll be bumped to $10 and left, there-by nullifying the companies statement of saying "thanks for being not a waste of air".

Depends on if the employees demand it.

I hope the legislation covers it, because I know the businesses won't offer to scale it.

**djones520**

Easy E wrote:
djones520 wrote:
So... all of the employees who had earned raises above new minimum wage employees... I wonder if their pay will scale, or if they'll be bumped to $10 and left, there-by nullifying the companies statement of saying "thanks for being not a waste of air".

Depends on if the employees demand it.

I hope the legislation covers it, because I know the businesses won't offer to scale it.

Probably not. And at that point, what incentive would there have been for folks in said position to continue doing extra work that made them different from the minimum wages guys in the first place? "Hey, we trust you enough to give you extra responsibility, but not enough to pay you more then others."

**Aerethan**

I can tell you right now that pay won't scale, at least not for my employees. They are required to produce 6x their hourly in order for us to afford them(overhead is a bitch). They would need to increase their productivity 20% across the board if they wanted the pay to scale, and with how tight they are now, I can tell you it's an unreasonable request.

Fast food will take a hit here, so we can expect a 25% increase in prices to offset them.

Yes we have time to prepare for it, but at the same time companies can't be expected to eat these raises. The cost of goods will increase to cover the new raises going out.

So yes, Larry will make 25% more, but that still won't get him anywhere near paying rent on his own, and anything he buys from a company that pays minimum wage will now be more expensive.

**AlmightyWalrus**

c0j1r0 wrote:
Cool, now people can live mildly comfortably by working at McDonalds for the rest of their lives. Because that it takes SO much skill to work a cash register.

I made that much when i was about 16 because I worked for a construction company and learned a trade that takes skill to do. Someone who is too lazy to learn a skill shouldn't get the same pay that I made when I went through a lot of hard work to learn how to do something. This will likely raise the price of EVERYTHING to compensate and we'll be right back where we started. People with certain skill-sets will demand more money, which will raise the cost of household items to compensate. Welcome to inflation.

That's all dependant on other people actually getting raises though.

**djones520**

Aerethan wrote:
I can tell you right now that pay won't scale, at least not for my employees. They are required to produce 6x their hourly in order for us to afford them(overhead is a bitch). They would need to increase their productivity 20% across the board if they wanted the pay to scale, and with how tight they are now, I can tell you it's an unreasonable request.

Fast food will take a hit here, so we can expect a 25% increase in prices to offset them.

Yes we have time to prepare for it, but at the same time companies can't be expected to eat these raises. The cost of goods will increase to cover the new raises going out.

So yes, Larry will make 25% more, but that still won't get him anywhere near paying rent on his own, and anything he buys from a company that pays minimum wage will now be more expensive.

Yeah... I'd expect to see rent prices across the state raise in 2016... Landlords will know their tenants have more money now.

**Aerethan**

djones520 wrote:
Aerethan wrote:
I can tell you right now that pay won't scale, at least not for my employees. They are required to produce 6x their hourly in order for us to afford them(overhead is a bitch). They would need to increase their productivity 20% across the board if they wanted the pay to scale, and with how tight they are now, I can tell you it's an unreasonable request.

Fast food will take a hit here, so we can expect a 25% increase in prices to offset them.

Yes we have time to prepare for it, but at the same time companies can't be expected to eat these raises. The cost of goods will increase to cover the new raises going out.

So yes, Larry will make 25% more, but that still won't get him anywhere near paying rent on his own, and anything he buys from a company that pays minimum wage will now be more expensive.

Yeah... I'd expect to see rent prices across the state raise in 2016... Landlords will know their tenants have more money now.

I agree, and it's stupid. People making minimum wage don't have much disposable income, and none of them afford rent on their own with 40 hours. Rent in this state is already out of hand, and this will just make it worse.

Even those of us who make decent money are leaving the state because it's bleeding us dry at every turn.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Calling it now, future headline from Cali:

Californian Cost of Living Sky Rockets

**Aerethan**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Calling it now, future headline from Cali:

Californian Cost of Living Sky Rockets

Followed by massive strikes of low wage workers demanding more pay to compensate.

**Kovnik Obama**

djones520 wrote:

Yeah... I'd expect to see rent prices across the state raise in 2016... Landlords will know their tenants have more money now.

Regulate rent increases to 10% max once over a year.

BAM! Problem solved.

**Spacemanvic**

Stupid is as stupid does! Way to go Cali. Can we cut them off the US and let 'em float away already?

**KalashnikovMarine**

Kovnik Obama wrote:
djones520 wrote:

Yeah... I'd expect to see rent prices across the state raise in 2016... Landlords will know their tenants have more money now.

Regulate rent increases to 10% max once over a year.

BAM! Problem solved.

Which is why apartments are so cheap in New York!

**Grundz**

djones520 wrote:
So... all of the employees who had earned raises above new minimum wage employees... I wonder if their pay will scale, or if they'll be bumped to $10 and left, there-by nullifying the companies statement of saying "thanks for being not a waste of air".

A bonus to one group is not a punishment to another

**daedalus**

djones520 wrote:
So... all of the employees who had earned raises above new minimum wage employees... I wonder if their pay will scale, or if they'll be bumped to $10 and left, there-by nullifying the companies statement of saying "thanks for being not a waste of air".

I made $10/hour about five years ago building and repairing computers. I was the highest paid guy at the shop at that time. Were I to ask him, my employer as of then would likely have told me that I could make more money when I started doing more work.

I see a large influx of people who make $10-12 working jobs shittier than fast food (yes, that exists) all fleeing toward fast food jobs.as fast as they can.

For the record, I loved working fast food. Every thought I had was my own. Job never followed me home. I went home, and then actually had the nergy to work on projects

I turned out to be not a total feth up and they were wanting to make me a manager by the time I found the job that paid $10/hour.

**hotsauceman1**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Calling it now, future headline from Cali:

Californian Cost of Living Sky Rockets

California recently changed its minimum wage a few years back.
Im interested to see if rent Skyrocketed back then

**Alfndrate**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Calling it now, future headline from Cali:

Californian Cost of Living Sky Rockets

California recently changed its minimum wage a few years back.
Im interested to see if rent Skyrocketed back then

It's not perfect, but here goes...
In 2008 your state raised minimum wage to 8 dollars an hour. In 2011 it was shown that the standard costs of living for 2 adults, 1 pre-schooler aged child and 1 school aged child was $58,251 in 2008 to meet the needs of housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and other basic costs. Assuming that both of those parents worked a minimum wage job for 40 hours a week, they'd becoming up short by about 28 thousand dollars or so. By 2011, these costs had risen to $69,529, yet minimum wage didn't increase during that time period, and as this thread shows won't increase until 2016.

Granted the largest cost of increase was various taxes enacted by state, federal, and local governments.

There's a lot of information out there that I don't really understand.

Interesting links on the cost of living:
http://cost-of-living.findthedata.org/l/615/National-Average
http://cost-of-living.findthedata.org/d/d/California

From just looking at that data, most places in California are more expensive to live in than the US national average.

**KalashnikovMarine**

They're raising it again due to cost of living concerns aren't they?

You've answered your own question.

**hotsauceman1**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
They're raising it again due to cost of living concerns aren't they?

You've answered your own question.

Isnt cost of living going up all around the country though?

**daedalus**

Alfndrate wrote:
In 2011 it was shown that the standard costs of living for 2 adults, 1 pre-schooler aged child and 1 school aged child was $58,251 in 2008 to meet the needs of housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and other basic costs. Assuming that both of those parents worked a minimum wage job for 40 hours a week, they'd becoming up short by about 28 thousand dollars or so.

A side question to this would be whether or not it should be expected that two people working minimum wage should be able to afford to raise a family of two.

**Alfndrate**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
They're raising it again due to cost of living concerns aren't they?

You've answered your own question.

Isnt cost of living going up all around the country though?

Cost of living goes up every year with inflation (just like everything else) that's why real jobs tend to give you a cost of living increase. The problem is your state is far more expensive than other places on in the country.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus wrote:
Alfndrate wrote:
In 2011 it was shown that the standard costs of living for 2 adults, 1 pre-schooler aged child and 1 school aged child was $58,251 in 2008 to meet the needs of housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and other basic costs. Assuming that both of those parents worked a minimum wage job for 40 hours a week, they'd becoming up short by about 28 thousand dollars or so.

A side question to this would be whether or not it should be expected that two people working minimum wage should be able to afford to raise a family of two.

No they probably shouldn't be, but that was my own extrapolation. The study that was conducted was simply, here is the amount of money that is used as the self-sustainability standard by organizations like United Way (it's in the article idk what it is really) to calculate what is needed to raise a family of x, y, and z.

As has been said, minimum wage jobs generally aren't meant to support a family, but in today's age with the weird job market we have, sometimes you have to support your family on minimum wage.

**Grundz**

Alfndrate wrote:

Cost of living goes up every year with inflation (just like everything else) that's why real jobs tend to give you a cost of living increase. The problem is your state is far more expensive than other places on in the country.

Also:

**daedalus**

Alfndrate wrote:

A side question to this would be whether or not it should be expected that two people working minimum wage should be able to afford to raise a family of two.

No they probably shouldn't be, but that was my own extrapolation the study that was conducted was simply, here is the amount of money that is used as the self-sustainability standard by organizations like United Way (it's in the article idk what it is really).

Well, not that I was trying to poke holes in your data. It was better than I could find with a brief glance, I think the question of what quality of life someone "deserves" from working such a job definitely enters into how much they earn.

**hotsauceman1**

daedalus wrote:
Alfndrate wrote:
In 2011 it was shown that the standard costs of living for 2 adults, 1 pre-schooler aged child and 1 school aged child was $58,251 in 2008 to meet the needs of housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and other basic costs. Assuming that both of those parents worked a minimum wage job for 40 hours a week, they'd becoming up short by about 28 thousand dollars or so.

A side question to this would be whether or not it should be expected that two people working minimum wage should be able to afford to raise a family of two.

One thing I will never forget is this from my friend. He wanted a family at 21(I want a family too, but not that young) he said he is looking for a wife to have a kid wwith. I asked, with his skillset(AKA knowing how to use a lever) how will he afford a family. His answer? My mom and dad will help me out.
Im sitting there thinking "WTF, if that is your plan you do not need to be having fething kids"

**Alfndrate**

daedalus wrote:
Alfndrate wrote:

A side question to this would be whether or not it should be expected that two people working minimum wage should be able to afford to raise a family of two.

No they probably shouldn't be, but that was my own extrapolation the study that was conducted was simply, here is the amount of money that is used as the self-sustainability standard by organizations like United Way (it's in the article idk what it is really).

Well, not that I was trying to poke holes in your data. It was better than I could find with a brief glance, I think the question of what quality of life someone "deserves" from working such a job definitely enters into how much they earn.

Lol, I'm not an expert I expected holes to be found

.

Okay... as to quality of life... I think that a minimum wage job of 40 hours a week afford someone without the skillset to get a better paying job should be able to support themselves. And by support themselves, I mean a decent (i.e. not hellhole) apartment (1 bed, 1 bath, kitchen/dining area), money for food and transportation (this doesn't mean car loan, this means you have money to support a level of transportation whether it's a bike, bus pass, subway, or gas if you have a car paid off already). Entertainment can be really cheap in today's world, and if you had some extra money for entertainment the fine, but you shouldn't be like, "oh god I have to work 80 hours just to have a roof over my head and food."

**Grundz**

Alfndrate wrote:
but you shouldn't be like, "oh god I have to work 80 hours just to have a roof over my head and food."

not 80, just 76