SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Jennifer Medina reports at the NYT that the the city council of nation’s second-largest city voted by a 14-1 margin to increase its minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2020, in what is perhaps the most significant victory so far in the national push to raise the minimum wage. Several other cities, including San Francisco, Seattle and Oakland, Calif., have already approved increases, and dozens more are considering doing the same.
In 2014, a number of Republican-leaning states like Alaska and South Dakota also raised their state-level minimum wage by referendum. The impact is likely to be particularly strong in Los Angeles, where, according to some estimates, more than 40 percent of the city’s work force earns less than $15 an hour. “The proposal will bring wages up in a way we haven’t seen since the 1960s," says Michael Reich. "There’s a sense spreading that this is the new norm, especially in areas that have high costs of housing.”
It's important to remember that the minimum wage hike comes at a significant direct cost to business — well over a $1 billion a year, according to the mayor's analysis — and it would be foolish to pretend that it won't lead to some job losses and business closures. Critics say the increase will turn the city into a “wage island,” pushing businesses away into nearby places where they can pay employees less. “They are asking businesses to foot the bill on a social experiment that they would never do on their own employees,” says Stuart Waldman, president of the Valley Industry and Commerce Association, a trade group that represents companies and other organizations in Southern California. “A lot of businesses aren’t going to make it. It’s great that this is an increase for some employees, but the sad truth is that a lot of employees are going to lose their jobs.”
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday May 20 2015, @03:28PM
It could be simpler than that, just back bill them. You'd need a revenue sharing agreement for the people with multiple jobs of course. In a lot of ways its simpler than a legal fine. To prevent retribution (sign up for .gov benefits and you're fired) simply aggregate.
To reduce paperwork and discourage high turnover rate employers, once you hire someone you're on the hook for the entire next financial year (or maybe quarter?) of bennies even if you fire them. A lot of welfare queen employers advertise $25/hr after probation/training and then suspiciously fire everyone on their last day of minimum wage probation.
I suppose it depends a hell of a lot on individual states, but locally the amount of money a company pays to the state for unemployment tax depends pretty strictly on how many claims end up getting paid out to former employees. So some rathole with 1000% turnover ends up paying more than a professionally run company. This wouldn't be a new concept in government operations.