from the everbody's-working-for-the-weekend dept.
California eyes four-day workweek for larger firms:
A four-day workweek could be mandated for some California employees should a proposed bill be passed by the state's legislature.
The bill, introduced by two Assembly members, Cristina Garcia (D-Dist.58) and Evan Low (D-Dist. 28), would amend existing legislation in the state and reduce the typical workweek from 40 hours to 32 hours.
Work in excess of 32 hours would be paid at a rate of at least one-and-a-half regular pay, and, most significantly, the Assembly Bill 2932 would require employers to pay employees the same amount for 32 hours as they would for 40. This would enable staff to work the equivalent of four eight-hour days, rather than five.
The change would apply to businesses with more than 500 workers, with certain exemptions, including having a collective bargaining agreement with a union.
Similar rules have been proposed at the federal level by US Rep. Mark Takano, (D-CA.), who last year proposed legislation that would also shorten the workweek from 40 to 32 hours.
"After two years of being in the pandemic, we've had over 47 million employees leave their job looking for better opportunities," Garcia said in an interview with CBS News. "They're sending a clear message they want a better work-life balance — they want better emotional and mental health, and this is part of that discussion."
The California Chamber of Commerce opposes the new measure on the grounds that it imposes "a tremendous cost on employers and includes provisions that are impossible to comply with," exposing businesses to litigation under the Private Attorneys General Act. The bill would also "discourage job growth in the state and likely reduce opportunities for workers," said Ashley Hoffman, policy advocate at the California Chamber of Commerce, in a letter to Low.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by khallow on Tuesday April 19 2022, @04:21AM (44 children)
I bet Texas looks really attractive right now.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by helel on Tuesday April 19 2022, @04:30AM (33 children)
Yes, the slow suicide of California. So slow it's continued growing despite all the economy killing regulations and environmental protections!
Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19 2022, @06:43AM
This is why I moved to Arkansaws! No labor laws protecting the whining workers. Lost your arm? Shoulda been more careful around the chop-saw! No recoverable body parts? Well, he ought not have fallen into the chipper! Runaway knows all about this shit, useless regulations that keep you from being kilt. Just a while ago, he was bitching about having to have flash-resistant clothing, to avoid being electrocuted. We all wish the best for Runaway1956, and that he not be electrocuted (an acquatience of my was), but for him to complain about measure to save his worthless ass? In Arkansas, life is cheap, especially chicken lives.
Transfers to human lives, as well. Runaway1956 is worth approximately 234. 7 chickens. I have done the math, and so has his employer. (As his employer is un-american, and would probably fire his skanky ass, if they new what he was saying on SoylentNews, we are not going to mention his actual employer here, other than to say Nashville, and it ain't Tennessee. No one could put together any information from what Runaway himself has dumped, here or in IRC. But, sucks to be conservative and stupid. All I can say.
(Score: 3, Informative) by darkfeline on Tuesday April 19 2022, @08:08AM (26 children)
"California’s population has continued to decline [...]
The state’s population declined by 173,000 between July 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021"
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-12-18/california-population-loss [latimes.com]
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 5, Touché) by sjames on Tuesday April 19 2022, @11:39AM (18 children)
OH NOES, anything but a zero point four percent decline! Mostly driven by reduced immigration and COVID deaths.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19 2022, @01:40PM (1 child)
This is a steady decline despite vast, continuing, often illegal immigration. The people leaving are on average richer and better educated than the ones arriving. This is not a good demographic sign.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday April 23 2022, @12:21AM
Evidence?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19 2022, @01:55PM (4 children)
If I'm mistaken, this is the first time California has lost population. It's also worth considering who is moving. If it's wealthy people, productive people, job creating people, then that could have outsized knock-on effects. I don't know if that's the case but it might be worth waiting to sneer "good riddance.". That sort of quip often antagonizes and exacerbates the issue.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 19 2022, @04:08PM (3 children)
AKA Democratic voters from OUT OF STATE!!!!
We're the majority in the nation as a whole. What happens is we all move to your state and start *gasp* voting!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19 2022, @05:45PM (2 children)
Don't hold your breath. Last I heard, most of them move to OR and WA, or other blue urban areas. Not a lot of sudden blueness in South Dakota ...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 19 2022, @06:07PM (1 child)
All those "MASSIVE EXODUS!!!!" maps you guys like to hyperventilate over show an awful lot headed to TX....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19 2022, @08:35PM
Who which guys?
I think you're thinking of someone else, but whatever...
But sure, a few head to Texas, statistically not a surprise. Quite a few also head to Florida. Still not a surprise. However, not enough to move many needles, especially since they head for places like Austin (blue as a jay), Fort Lauderdale (caribbean blue) and Orlando (bluer than Minnie's dress).
When 1 million dyed-in-the-wool cobalt-blue californians stampede like bison for Cheyenne, or Salt Lake City, wake me.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 19 2022, @03:50PM
I wonder if the Trump admin purposefully trying to prevent Hispanics from filling out the census had anything to do with that outlier.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Tuesday April 19 2022, @05:16PM (6 children)
Moving the goalposts much? You need Olympian level mental gymnastics to interpret a "zero point four percent decline" as "continued growing".
California has had net negative migration for the last decade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California#Net_domestic_migration [wikipedia.org]
"Net domestic migration hit a decade-long low, ballooning from a loss of 34,000 in 2012 to 277,000 in 2021. Over the last 10 years, California lost more than 1.625 million net domestic migrants—more than the population of Philadelphia."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/heres-why-california-is-losing-population-for-the-first-time [thedailybeast.com]
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 19 2022, @06:11PM (1 child)
So NOT the multiple decades khallow claimed above...
It's fun watching these drastic numbers shrink under scrutiny in real time.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 20 2022, @12:25PM
Come up with a better narrative. Both you and sjames make ridiculous arguments without regard for the facts. This isn't a recent phenomena in California or a one year data point taken out of context. It's just recently passed a threshold - negative population growth that one would have expected more at the end of the decade, but this has been going on for a half century and it doesn't look to me like it'll stop at population stabilization.
California got as big as it did because of a great combination of economic infrastructure, culture, and climate. But it's not taking care of the conditions that led to that growth. Thus, I think we'll see over the next two decades a significant collapse in California's population and economy. Texas seems unusually poised to take advantage of that collapse. IIRC, it's the largest recipient of California immigrants, for example.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday April 20 2022, @06:45AM (3 children)
It's still small enough that it's inside the error bars. It's certainly not worthy of all the doom and gloom replies. Meanwhile, I didn't make the original claim. I'm just observing that the "decline" is hardly alarming. As crowded as parts of California are, they might even be better off with a little decline.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 20 2022, @12:28PM (2 children)
You ignore that population growth got within those error bars of negative territory. The story isn't just a year of negative population growth, but the huge outflow of people that has to happen in order for it to be larger than California's considerable inflow and birth rate.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday April 20 2022, @10:10PM (1 child)
And I should panic why?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 21 2022, @02:27AM
It just shouldn't be a surprise when California loses massive population and economy because of policies like what is described in this story.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 19 2022, @05:44PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday April 20 2022, @06:47AM (1 child)
I saw a guy take a bite out of a hamburger today. What ever will we do after he has eaten the last cow in the world? The trend is clear!!!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 20 2022, @10:40AM
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 19 2022, @03:41PM (6 children)
And you have to cherry-pick the crap out of the date range to even see that! When have you EVER heard somebody talk about population trends using a SINGLE year of data? A single year that just so happens to be in the middle of a pandemic...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 19 2022, @05:49PM (5 children)
In other words, pick the latest date for which there is data. If we don't "cherry pick", we'll see a decades long trend from one of the fastest growing states in the US to the recent negative population growth. It's not an outlier, it's a transition to a new regime of failure for California.
If you're not seeing something terribly wrong with California, it's because you're not looking.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 19 2022, @05:59PM (4 children)
So the exact opposite of how one should study demographics then?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 19 2022, @06:10PM (3 children)
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 19 2022, @06:18PM (2 children)
In a domain that measures changes over decades, selecting a single-year study that just so happens to be during an unprecedented global pandemic that killed a million US citizens and closed all the borders MIGHT just be some cherry picking.....
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 19 2022, @06:42PM
The "single-year study", the US Census and its annual estimates, goes back to 1850 for California. Check a Wikipedia summary [wikipedia.org] of those results. Notice one very peculiar feature of the population growth of California. Four of the five most recent censuses show the lowest growth over a decade for California to that point: 18.6% to 1980, 13.8% to 2000, 10.0% to 2010, and 6.1% to 2020. Think about that. California transitions from insane population growth (lowest year was 22.4 for the decade ending in 1900) for 120 years to this substantial weakening.
A decline in population in 2021 is not a "single-year study", but an acceleration of a trend that's been around for the half century.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 19 2022, @07:44PM
So why was California affected, but not Texas? California lost 173k people - even with covid completely eliminated, they would have lost almost 120k people (55k covid deaths). Meanwhile Texas gained [census.gov] 382k over that same period (yes, more than twice as much as California lost) with 49k covid deaths (using covid deaths reported from this page [wikipedia.org]). Similarly impacted by covid, but very different outcome.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday April 19 2022, @01:17PM (4 children)
California has had net migration out for two decades and started shrinking in absolute population last year. There's something wrong with the narrative.
As I've noted before, my take is that Texas will over take California in population in two decades.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19 2022, @07:26PM (3 children)
Yeah, let's see if it turns democrat by then
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Mykl on Tuesday April 19 2022, @11:13PM (2 children)
It will. There's a strong correlation between population density and party affiliation in the US. More people = more blue for you.
I have to say that it's a little bemusing watching people trying to portray a reduced population density in California as a bad thing. Reduced population will also reduce housing pressure, water scarcity and all sorts of other things. The Bay area could do with having their property values halved.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 20 2022, @03:28AM (1 child)
I see some acknowledgement of the problems of California, including that it's not all due to high population density (particularly water scarcity). My take is that California didn't get the way it is through population density alone, but also through the sort of delusional, interfering regulation of this story. As to halving the property prices of the Bay area, let's see what the governments of California do first to keep those prices up. There's already extensive interference in housing markets at all levels (zoning, easy credit, tax laws, etc), and just so much that California can do to weird the whole situation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 21 2022, @03:29PM
Oh yeah. All the you-can-go-your-own-way californian secessionists who want to thump their chests about how California will leave a broke USA shivering in the cold without that CA-cash will find themselves pretty surprised when they find out what the going rate for water is once their current deals are torn up.
"California is the bread basket of the USA! You're eating California strawberries! We will survive on our own!"
"Yeah, about that aqueduct, and those dams, and all the water rights you've bought up in Oregon and Washington. Nevada would like that, and you're no longer in the club."
Re: property prices
If those prices tank there will be a world of hurt. Everything from investors dumping them (because what the hell would be the point any more) to tax base shrivelling like a slug in a bowl of salt, to mortgages going up in smoke ... it'll be a wild old time. So many dominoes to fall.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Mykl on Tuesday April 19 2022, @06:52AM (9 children)
Meanwhile, back in 1847: We'll see if this Factory Act [uwgb.org] will lead to the death of British industry. Why would an employer stay in England with all of these restrictions when they could move to Africa and continue to have their
slavesemployees continue working 15 hours per day?Working hours have been reduced in the past. Somehow, business found a way to survive. The fact that executive compensation as a multiple of average pay is higher than ever is a sign that companies can afford to pay their workers more.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19 2022, @01:48PM
Yes!
Keep pulling on that thread, and see what the businesses did.
Let me help you: automation makes factories more capital-heavy, but worker hours more productive, without fostering increased employment.
There's more, but that should get you started.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 19 2022, @05:42PM
I grant the need for some regulation, but California is way beyond what it needs to protect its workers and other people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 20 2022, @04:04PM (6 children)
It's not automatically a given that "business will find a way" if working hours are reduced just because working hours have been reduced in the past and things worked out.
For example, businesses might find it hard to survive if working hours are reduced to zero working hours per week, given current tech (current robots aren't cheap or good enough).
So zero is probably a limit. So what's optimal based on current and near future tech? 3 day work week? 1 day work week? So, now how are you so sure that a 4 day work week would be good for businesses?
FWIW since I don't live in California nor even the USA, if it doesn't work out it might even be good for me (more $$$$). And if it works out it might be good for me too (easier to convince the Bosses a 4 day work week works) ;).
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Wednesday April 20 2022, @10:03PM (5 children)
The idea didn't come out of nowhere [bbc.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 21 2022, @02:43AM (4 children)
Yea, it came out of someone's ass.
[...]
All those jobs are public sector. And the obvious rebuttal here is that if a job can be done just as well with say 35 hours as it can with 40 hour, then perhaps it can be done even better with 0 hours (that is, not done at all) and the worker doing a real private sector job instead.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Thursday April 21 2022, @03:47AM (3 children)
Please point me to the study that supports your assertion that productivity goes down when working hours are reduced.
I can wait.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 21 2022, @04:45AM (2 children)
Because "studies" are the only way we can reason about this?
Only two of those jobs even had a viable measure of productivity: preschools and hospitals. And well, 35 hours instead of 40 hours means you're working 5 hours less. There's only so much time and so many customers to serve (kids or patients). So where's the productivity gain coming from that counters that loss of 5 hours? My bet is that whatever tricks they used behind the scene to make those jobs appear more productive would work just as with someone who worked 40 hours a week.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Thursday April 21 2022, @06:07AM (1 child)
OK, so your evidence is "muh feelz". Got it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 21 2022, @03:32PM
Actually, his evidence is that the basis on which they're claiming success is hard as hell to measure precisely because the productivity is opaque.
And incidentally, as a child of a teacher, I can tell you that classroom time is nowhere near all the hours in the job. If they just decided to measure classroom time and shovel class prep into a bucket marked "personal time" that's about as cynical a relabeling as I can imagine.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Barenflimski on Tuesday April 19 2022, @04:59AM (1 child)
Not even Disney would come up with this one. These guys live in uber fantasy land.
The problem with work/life balance in most places in America isn't too much work. The problem in most places is there isn't anything to do if you're not working. We've turned most of these Urban/Suburban places into giant corporate parks where you have to pay to do just about anything. Want to have a beer with a friend on the corner in town? We've got laws against that. Not working and actually playing? Many can't afford that.
The people that work in these large companies are the ones that can afford holidays. The people that are working 80 hours a week for minimum wage, or for the sake of keeping their restaurant open aren't spending Christmas in Kauai and wouldn't be affected by this law.
In America, when not at work, you have the choice of meeting people at the grocery store, the bar or church. What do a large majority of people do with more spare time? They drink and do drugs. Why? Because most folks backyards are not National Forests, which now require reservations.
This is a really dirty band-aid over one of the many symptoms of a much larger issue.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19 2022, @07:31AM
You're right that this bill has problems, but for the wrong reasons. Yes, this doesn't solve the problem. It mandates that overtime pay begin at 32 hours instead of 40. But it doesn't seem to do anything for employees who are exempt and don't get overtime pay to begin with. The problem is that this is limited in scope. If you have a high enough salary or do creative work, you're not eligible for overtime, and this doesn't apply. That's the problem.
Many exempt employees don't get to just go home and forget about work until they have to clock in again. They're quite possibly going to spend more of their work day on unnecessary BS like unproductive and pointless meetings, then checking and replying to emails that may not be necessary, and then put in extra time to do the real work. Employees spend more time on work because that time isn't spent efficiently, often because of poor management.
People are required to do unproductive and mind-numbing stuff that's not necessary, but takes up time. Because of that, they have to put in extra time doing the stuff that is necessary, and probably don't do it as efficiently. It's refreshing when I actually get to spend a day writing code, analyzing data, and doing real work. I have a couple of weekly meetings that involve just collaborating with my team, solving problems, and doing actual technical work. Those are good meetings and I find them worthwhile. We actually get stuff done.
Most of the time, the blocks of time where I'd be doing actual creative work get interrupted by unnecessary meetings and mind-numbing emails that never needed to be sent. Cut out the unnecessary stuff and the real work could probably get done in 32 hours. Unfortunately, we're not the people who would be helped or protected by this law.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by darkfeline on Tuesday April 19 2022, @08:13AM (4 children)
When was the last major bill that California passed to "do something" that had net positive outcomes and not massive negative unintended/unknown consequences?
If solving social issues was as simple as "doing something", we'd in paradise millenia ago.
Warning: This post can expose you to chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 19 2022, @04:05PM (3 children)
You can thank CA for the toxic car exhaust fumes you are not breathing right now.
Anyone under 40 or so can thank CA for not getting braindamaged by leaded gasoline
You can also thank CA for the lack of acid rain we've been seeing for the last few decades.
They did all this stuff to "do something" first and the rest of the nation followed suit because sometimes things need to be done.
(Score: 3, Informative) by darkfeline on Tuesday April 19 2022, @05:12PM (2 children)
The EPA started regulating and reducing lead levels in gas at the federal level way before California stepped in. Yes, California did finally ban leaded gas after 20 more years, I'll give you that.
The Clean Air act that reduced the pollutants that cause acid raid was also implemented at the federal level. I did not find any reference to any California specific laws that contributed to that.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 19 2022, @05:55PM (1 child)
CA was the first state in the nation to ban leaded gasoline in 1992. [deseret.com] and the Federal Government followed suit in 1996.
California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) [ca.gov]
(Score: 1) by the_olo on Wednesday April 20 2022, @07:31AM
And, a more recent example from the 2019-2020 period of Trump administration: Defying Trump, California locks in vehicle emission deals with major automakers [reuters.com].
(Score: 2) by looorg on Tuesday April 19 2022, @11:11AM (3 children)
So there are a lot of loopholes then? Will this only be something that the idiots have to pay for but it will look good on paper? Cause most companies with more then 500 employees have lawyers and that they wouldn't manage to get some kind of agreement with a union would seems staggeringly small. So who will this apply to again?
It's not that I wouldn't want to work a shorter work week, even tho I'm not in California. I guess if this works and takes off it will spread eventually like all other things work-related. HR seems to get with the program and import all the fancy ideas from across the great pond.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19 2022, @01:56PM
This is a pretty political move.
BIG COMPANIES: obviously, vampire squid monsters
WITHOUT UNIONS: only because they must be union-busting
MANDATORY OVERTIME PAY: basically, a way to shoehorn in a higher minimum wage, or to motivate only keeping people as part-time, thereby raising headline employment rates (as long as you pay no attention to either underemployment numbers, or to people with multiple jobs).
If it were a good idea, it would have been a good idea across the board. Any time you see that kind of targeted exemption list, you can bet that the politicians are unzipping while telling someone to smile for the camera.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 19 2022, @05:54PM
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday April 20 2022, @03:30AM
I think it would be interesting to inventory affected business. Because this thing sounds to me like it's designed to punish some particular business sector, rather than to generally help workers.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19 2022, @11:51AM
butbutbut muh shortage!!!!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19 2022, @12:29PM (3 children)
I waiting for them to get to a one day work-week. Then I'm gonna go out and get five of them jobs.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by looorg on Tuesday April 19 2022, @01:06PM (2 children)
That is another question -- what are people going to do with that "spare" day? We all like to think they'll use it to relax, better themselves or get educated. But isn't it more likely that they'll just get a second "part-time" job?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 19 2022, @06:05PM (1 child)
If they need more money they could just work the 40 and collect the extra overtime.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Reziac on Wednesday April 20 2022, @03:37AM
Assuming their value to the employer exceeds the extra cost of paying a full day of overtime. I'd hazard damn few hourly wage earners produce that much extra value. I think more likely this will reduce even more workers to sub-32 hour status (with a parallel loss in benefits) and most businesses will find it more cost-effective to have two part-time workers rather than one full-time-plus-OT worker.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Tuesday April 19 2022, @02:04PM (4 children)
It's good to see the trend to lower working hours finally getting some traction again.
From the early 1800s to the early 1900s the length of a typical work week fell from about 90 hours to a bit under 50, while net income increased thanks to the greatly increased productivity from the industrial revolution.
Pretty much everyone assumed the trend would continue indefinitely as productivity continued to increase due to advances in automation, eventually creating a society of mostly-idle rich free to pursue their own interests, living off the labor of a robotic "working class", free from the moral stains of slavery or other exploitation.
Instead in 1940 the 40-hour workweek became law in the US, and all further progress ceased. Productivity continued to increase, but hours remained the same while incomes began to stagnate, and the overwhelming majority of all the new gains went to the investor class.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by richtopia on Tuesday April 19 2022, @03:23PM (1 child)
I mostly agree, but I will add the caveat that the work/life balance should not be completely viewed in workweek form. Since 1940, the workweek has largely stagnated, however we have seen retirement become more prolific, life expediencies increase, and time spent in education increase.
In my opinion, it is the 1980's to today where we really lost the gains in work/life balance. However, I'm not sure if mandating less hours will be a winning proposition. During that time we saw an increased globalization, and with the improvements in telecommunication I feel more and more pressure from middle income countries to replace me. I'm lucky enough to have a decent salary as an engineer and I'm saving every penny in-case my job does get off-shored. Then my work life balance will become much more favorable. Or less favorable if you consider my garden a job... it may start contributing more and more of my calories.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 19 2022, @06:22PM
The retirement age in the US seems to be going up about as fast my my actual age so I'm not so sure about that!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Tuesday April 19 2022, @06:00PM
Not if you count all compensation (link shows total compensation, including employer health insurance, tracking productivity well). Incomes stagnated because medical costs went up a lot, not because of some alleged disconnect between productivity and compensation. [heritage.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 19 2022, @06:01PM
It's a stupid idea. My take is that in addition to jobs and people moving out of California to greener fields, we'll see a bunch of people with multiple jobs, including a few with two full time jobs just to make ends meet.
Not if you count all compensation [heritage.org] (link shows total compensation, including employer health insurance, tracking productivity well). Incomes stagnated because medical costs went up a lot, not because of some alleged disconnect between productivity and compensation.