Why the $15 minimum wage will cost California 400,000 jobs

[TalkRadio]

In 2016, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill that put the state minimum wage on track to reach $15 per hour by 2022. The next increase—from $10.50 to $11.00—is scheduled for Jan. 1, 2018. If you're a business in one of thirteen different California localities--from Mountain View to Milpitas, and from San Jose to Santa Clara--the required wage floor will rise even higher.

Based on the state's historical minimum wage experience, they estimate California will lose approximately 400,000 jobs by 2022 when $15 is phased in. Retail and food service employees are hit especially hard by wage increases; nearly half of all job loss comes from these industries.

None of this should come as a surprise. The minimum wage is one of the most-studied topics in economics, and the consensus view of the research is clear: Raising the minimum wage reduces job opportunities. A summary published in late 2015 by Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco put it this way:

“Recent research using a wider variety of methods to address the problem of comparison states tends to confirm earlier findings of job loss. Coupled with critiques of the methods that generate little evidence of job loss, the overall body of recent evidence suggests that the most credible conclusion is a higher minimum wage results in some job loss for the least-skilled workers—with possibly larger adverse effects than earlier research suggested."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...l-cost-california-400000-jobs/2/#61e21bb73e37

 

[Rightguide]

Democrat economics (Marxism) is a threat to freedom loving people everywhere. They are the most destructive force in America today. Where they rule chaos and tragedy abound.

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...l-cost-california-400000-jobs/2/#61e21bb73e37

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Employment_Policies_Institute
https://www.salon.com/2013/11/13/corporate_americas_new_scam_industry_p_r_firm_poses_as_think_tank/

 

[cowslinger64]

Democrat economics (Marxism) is a threat to freedom loving people everywhere. They are the most destructive force in America today. Where they rule chaos and tragedy abound.

Republican economics are to give massive tax breaks to people that really don't need them in hopes it'll trickle down like piss on their heads... And will add trillions to the deficit that SUDDENLY isn't a problem after 8 years of incessant whining about the deficit during Obama and will be paid for with funds from social security and Medicare.

And idiots like you and Botanydummy think it's a great idea.

 

[Rightguide]

Republican economics are to give massive tax breaks to people that really don't need them in hopes it'll trickle down like piss on their heads... And will add trillions to the deficit that SUDDENLY isn't a problem after 8 years of incessant whining about the deficit during Obama and will be paid for with funds from social security and Medicare.

And idiots like you and Botanydummy think it's a great idea.

It isn't going to add trillions to the deficit.

So much dipshittery from you lately. Did you whine when Obama doubled the national debt in 8 years?

 

[cowslinger64]

It isn't going to add trillions to the deficit.

So much dipshittery from you lately. Did you whine when Obama doubled the national debt in 8 years?

This isn't about Obama.. Pay attention.

They've admitted that the best forecasts are around 1.5 trillion fuckin dollars even with help from cuts in social security and medicare.. You're an idiot for not having a problem with that.

 

[Sean Renaud]

It is about OBama, but for shits and giggles say it isn't will you submit if we stay above the 50% mark for job growth.

 

[Rightguide]

This isn't about Obama.. Pay attention.

They've admitted that the best forecasts are around 1.5 trillion fuckin dollars even with help from cuts in social security and medicare.. You're an idiot for not having a problem with that.

Forecasts from whom, Chuck "sack 'o shit" Schumer?

 

[cowslinger64]

It is about OBama, but for shits and giggles say it isn't will you submit if we stay above the 50% mark for job growth.

No it isn't... This is about the Trump plan. There are plenty of other Obama threads that the whining can continue on.

 

[Sean Renaud]

tis nae whining we have been right every single time. Nice if you could find a fail.

 

[Rightguide]

No it isn't... This is about the Trump plan. There are plenty of other Obama threads that the whining can continue on.

None of the shit the Democrats are saying is going to happen will happen. They are wrong on all economic questions and issues. This is why they preside over all of the economic disasters in America.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Republican economics are to give massive tax breaks to people that really don't need them in hopes it'll trickle down like piss on their heads... And will add trillions to the deficit that SUDDENLY isn't a problem after 8 years of incessant whining about the deficit during Obama and will be paid for with funds from social security and Medicare.

And idiots like you and Botanydummy think it's a great idea.

I never said it was a great idea, please stop making up lies to feel better about the spanking you got Detroit.

It isn't going to add trillions to the deficit.

Sure as shit isn't going to take care of it with the ultra oversold "trickle down" economics.

None of the shit the Democrats are saying is going to happen will happen. They are wrong on all economic questions and issues. This is why they preside over all of the economic disasters in America.

So fare none of the shit the Republicans said was going to happen...has happened.

None of it.

 

[Que]

Republican economics are to give massive tax breaks to people that really don't need them in hopes it'll trickle down like piss on their heads... And will add trillions to the deficit that SUDDENLY isn't a problem after 8 years of incessant whining about the deficit during Obama and will be paid for with funds from social security and Medicare.

And idiots like you and Botanydummy think it's a great idea.

The only people that "need" tax breaks are those that actually pay taxes. The evil rich pay most of the taxes that are paid. More than 1/2 of Americans pay zero net Federal income tax. There is no way to suggest any of them are paying a "fair share" when they pay nothing.

Worse, some of the taxes PAID by the evil rich is "REFUNDED" to people who pay less than zero. The government pays them. It is a negative tax to them.

The Internal Revenue Service is the largest distributor of net money paid out to Americans. It's the largest welfare agency in the country.

Nothing about taking money away from rich people benefits poor people or middle income people. It's just an excuse to keep spending money on things that country doesn't need to spend money on. We all disagree on what should be cut but I don't think anyone seriously believes that this country should spend four trillion dollars a year.

 

[DeYaKen]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...l-cost-california-400000-jobs/2/#61e21bb73e37

Heard it all before. They are using all the same arguments used against implementing a minimum wage in the UK. Guess what. we did it and none of the doom and gloom happened.
So all the service industries are going to lay off staff. No they won't because if they did they wouldn't be able to supply the levels of service they are contracted to provide. They will simply put up their prices. They won't lose the business because all their competitors will be in the same position. Only the organisations that directly serve the public will find it difficult but then people at the bottom will have more disposable income.

Unlike the people you have just given massive tax cuts to, those people at the bottom of the income scale will immediately spend their extra income so more money will go into your economy. Some folks will say that if the costs get passed up the chain the companies at the top will fold. But hang on haven't they just been given massive tax cuts that should help them pay for it.

There is one very real danger which is the outsourcing of more jobs to China, India and Mexico. However, the pay rates in those countries are already so much lower than yours, only the naive would believe that wasn't going to happen anyway.

BTW it is not communist ideology it is simple Keynesian economics

"Only two types of people attempt to predict the future. Those that don't know and those that don't know they don't know." J. K. Gailbraith Economist and one time head of the Federal Reserve.

 

[Hypoxia]

Nothing about taking money away from rich people benefits poor people or middle income people. It's just an excuse to keep spending money on things that country doesn't need to spend money on.

Like major military hardware that doesn't work, hey? Warplanes that can't fly and fight, warships that can't float and fight, yada yada. Better to fund those turkeys than to maintain what we have, hey? See how much of the military is unfit for deployment.

USA spends more on its vastly bloated national security/military apparatus than the rest of the world COMBINED. And the Pentagon doesn't know how to win wars. Sad.

One warship's price would fund much healthcare to provide for a healthier, more productive, nation that generates more profits and revenues. A sicker nation won't be productive and prosperous. That's a luzer's plan.
_____

Don't like taxes? How about lotteries?

Colonial America Was Built on Lottery Revenue

Roads, colleges, war—all funded by lottery tickets.

As Philadelphia came to surpass Boston as the colonies’ largest city, its growth was funded in no small part by lotteries. “It was looked upon as a kind of voluntary tax for paving streets, erecting wharves, buildings, etc., with a contingent profitable return for such subscribers as held the lucky numbers,” wrote Spofford in 1893.

Philadelphians used lotteries to build a battery on the Delaware River to defend the city, span creeks with bridges, and fund roads that led from the countryside into the city. But it was far from the only city in the American colonies that depended on people’s willingness to try their luck. In the 17th and 18th centuries, lotteries were a thriving business, both public and private, and without them, early America couldn’t have been built.

Let's fund DoD / Pentagon with lottery tickets, hey? Spend tax money on health, safety, and environmental programs for a more productive and prosperous nation. But play the lotteries for military adventures. Win a piece of the next submarine!
_____

ObTopic: Higher minimum wages are good because workers with money buy stuff, and those without, don't. Henry Ford scandalized capitalist America in the 1910s by paying his workers a high wage. What did they do with their paychecks? Bought houses, clothes... and Ford cars. Workers' wages pump the economy directly. And if they make enough to pay income tax, all the better.

 

[warrior queen]

In Australia, the gov't recently voted in to eliminate/reduce most penalty rates paid to the lowest-paid workers as compensation for giving up their weekends.
"It will create jobs!" they said.
"It will mean lower prices for goods and services purchased on weekends!" they said.

Neither of those things has actually happened.

What has happened, is that low-paid workers are now not spending their money, almost zero jobs growth has happened across the sectors impacted by the cuts, and the corporations and businesses have recorded profit growth.

I was never in favour of minimum wages..... but as I see the wealth equality gap increase disproportionately, I now begin to wonder whether a basic, liveable, minimum wage might not be the way to go?
In rich countries such as ours, there is absolutely no excuse for allowing someone who works a 40 hour week plus to be still living below the poverty line!

 

[contrifan32]

Does that include unskilled workers?

 

[Hypoxia]

Does that include unskilled workers?

How much skill does a bicycle courier need?

 

[warrior queen]

Does that include unskilled workers?

Yes, of course. It costs exactly the same minimum amount to feed, house and clothe an unskilled worker as it does a skilled one.

How much skill does a bicycle courier need?

A bicycle courier still needs to pay x for basic food, y for basic housing, and z for basic clothing - as would a highly skilled worker to meet basic needs.
The fact that one has more training and qualifications doesn't negate the fact that both should be paid the minimum needed to live on. It just means that one will be paid substantially more than the minimum.

 

[Luk]

None of the shit the Democrats are saying is going to happen will happen. They are wrong on all economic questions and issues. This is why they preside over all of the economic disasters in America.

It must be impossible for you to gather the strength just to wake up in the morning knowing that the evil Dems own you like they do. Your entire life is a gigantic fearful reaction to liberal ways. Poor vettebirther.

 

[Adder4321]

Meh, whether or not a person keeps their job after a minimum wage increase depends on a few things. How much money they make for the company, whether that amount is greater than what they cost the company and whether their role is essential for the running of the company.

If they make the company more money than they cost if being paid the minimum wage, then they keep their jobs. If they make less money, and the company can function without them, then they lose their job. If they are essential but they make less money, then company increases the prices of their goods and services, and then inflation happens. Actually, if the the company has to pay their employees more, they will likely increase their prices to make up for missed profits, anyway.

 

[Rightguide]

I never said it was a great idea, please stop making up lies to feel better about the spanking you got Detroit.



Sure as shit isn't going to take care of it with the ultra oversold "trickle down" economics.




So fare none of the shit the Republicans said was going to happen...has happened.

None of it.

That's because it isn't the law yet.

 

[Hypoxia]

Seems like many missed the point that workers with cash spend it on stuff, boosting the economy. Henry Ford proved that.

 

[Adder4321]

Seems like many missed the point that workers with cash spend it on stuff, boosting the economy. Henry Ford proved that.

Yeah, but then the companies increase the prices of their goods and services to counter for the loss of profit, thus making inflation happen. Also, by that logic, wouldn't super rich people also spend their money on stuff, boosting the economy?

 

[BotanyBoy]

That's because it isn't the law yet.

I mean't delivering on their promises.