Hopefully those already making 10 dollars an hour are not expecting a pay raise.
David Frias works two minimum-wage jobs to squeak by in one of the most expensive cities in America. Come New Year's Day, he'll have a few more coins in his pocket as San Francisco makes history by becoming the first city in the nation to scale a $10 minimum wage. The city's hourly wage for its lowest-paid workers will hit $10.24, more than $2 above the California minimum wage and nearly $3 more than the working wage set by the federal government.
It won't put much more in Frias' wallet. But it gives him a sense of moving on up.
"It's a psychological boost," said Frias, who is a 34-year-old usher at a movie theater and a security guard for a crowd control firm. "It means that I'll have more money in my wallet to pay my bills and money to spend in the city to help the economy."
San Franciscans passed a proposition in 2003 that requires the city to increase the minimum wage each year, using a formula tied to inflation and the cost of living. It's just another way the progressive people of the City by the Bay have shown their support for the working-class in a locale where labor unions remain strong and housing costs are sky high.
Karl Kramer of the San Francisco Living Wage Coalition said a decent wage for a single adult without children in the city would be $15, and that doubles when you have at least one child or more. But like other advocates of better wages, he's still pleased that San Francisco will be the first in the nation to top $10.
Minimum wage COULD be higher, but in general a minimum wage shouldn't be to high, the Conservatives do have a point in this, minimum wage jobs are for first time workers, teenagers and such, and if it goes to high, it COULD be damaging to some extent. I'm not an economist, so I wouldn't know where the line is, but it should be raised along with living wage, BUT not high enough to live off of necessarily, but it should rise a little bit, as living expenses go up.
View attachment 67119839
According to the Small Business Administration they are fairly significant, and worse for those who cannot utilize economies of scale as well as larger businesses can.
it's worth noting that this is from 2005, and therefore does not count the regulatory bonanza that has been going on the past few years. nobody knows yet what Obamacare is going to eventually end up costing them.
how will they, given that they are A) likely to be the least educated, B) likely to be the least credit worthy, C) likely to be the least educatable and D) now unable to make up for these things by building work experience?
but at least someone is admitting that this means kicking poor people to the curb.
Okay, what I meant to ask was what specific regulations should be done away with? Not the exact costs (and I should have been more clear). The paper you posted is pretty dense, and 95 pages. I did browse it, but it was not specific enough for my needs, so could you give me some specifics?
This isn't a business expense per se but it is businesses that will have to pay for it.
In the Clean Water Act it was decided that rain water needed regulated and it instructed cities that they must devise a plan to regulate rain water. Now we live in a small city without a city engineer and had to hire one specifically for this. It was sent in and was rejected for 4 things. O.K., re-do and sent back in where it was rejected for 36 things.
All completely asinine. The town has said screw it, we aren't going to do it. Other larger cities have done the same thing. I can certainly undertand a business deciding they would rather not expand than deal with new regulations.
Decisions like this are why items on the dollar menu at McDonalds in San Francisco cost $1.50.
What is a living wage?
Are you talking about aliving wage for a married man with 3 kids and a mortgage or a divorced man with 3 kids, alimony and 2 mortages?
If the employeer has to pay an employee everything that employee will need to survive with all his bills included, that employeer will only hire teenagers that live with thier parents. How will any other people very get jobs?
To me, I would say serving fast food is a much more difficult job than some standard desk job. You're always on your feet, doing multiple tasks at once, just because there is an endless supply of labor doesn't diminish the job. I think its more demanding than say balloon-payment-mortgage loan officer or mortgage-backed-security investor. Just because one job requires "supposed" skills and one has no prerequisites does not diminish the work. And it's not just only teenagers working minimum wage jobs, older people do work them too, although if only teenagers did work them we wouldn't need to raise the minimum wage but I don't think that's how it is.
Well, if we all got payed for how hard our job is overall, wouldn't that be nice lol, but thats not how it works, and it shouldn't work that way, I may be progressive mostly, but i still support a free market, a regulated, free market that is. If a business wants to pay their CEO a huge salary, whos to say "no you can't do that"? its a private business, its their decision, their money that they made.
Obama has approved 4.7 percent fewer rules than Bush had at the same point in his presidency, but they cost businesses more, according to a Bloomberg News analysis. Obama's regulations are expected to cost businesses between $100 million and $4.1 billion more than Bush's, Bloomberg finds. Still, neither president's rules have cost as much as the annual high the costs of the elder Bush's regulations hit in 1992.
The second paragraph of the article made sense once you put the situation into context.
I assume Bush's (jr) regulations were around security and had to do more with 9/11.
also, can anyone point out specific regulations, because its one thing to argue from the stand point of numbers and dollars, but its another if we actually look at some specific regulations, as maybe some are worth defending even if they cost a business more money. maybe.
I'm not sure how many people want to open that can of worms.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?