Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday May 20 2015, @02:20PM   Printer-friendly

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.”

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday May 21 2015, @09:33AM

    by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Thursday May 21 2015, @09:33AM (#185963) Homepage
    So the net effect is to encourage people to be people in debt rather than have savings.

    And that's a good thing how?
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2015, @10:26AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2015, @10:26AM (#185978)

    So the net effect is to encourage people to be people in debt rather than have savings.

    It would if there were minimum wage raises on a regular schedule (so you could expect there to be another minimum wage raise after you've taken your debt). But as a singular event, it doesn't have that potential: You cannot plan on it occurring.

    Of course, inflation in general has that effect. An face it, the current monetary system in inflationary in nature, regardless of minimum wages. And debt is how money is created in this system.

    So if you don't want inflation and a debt based economy, it is the monetary system you should worry about, not the minimum wages. On the other hand, if you are OK with the monetary system then you should also be OK with the inflationary effect of raising minimal wages.