Go!Bears;842474944 said:

---

Well said, TB

My perspective: We sold them out with our trade policies that get me very cheap consumer goods, at the cost of my neighbor's job. Now, you can argue for the advantages of "Free-Trade" and I will concede that there are many, but they come at a cost. Many of us reap the rewards and give no thought to those in our society that are paying the cost. We pretend that we deserve those rewards, the result of our "good life choices" and that the poor also deserve their lot. I see an element of luck in my current situation, and an element of privilege. I feel an obligation to help people who were not as lucky as I was.

Here's the sticky part: I think we all have that obligation, whether one feels it or not and I am comfortable compelling people (through taxation) to contribute. After all, I am compelled to contribute to pay the cost of all of the wars. To me it is all the same.

---

If we stop the wars and activist foreign policy, plus come up with an alternative to prison for non-violent/no victim "crimes" (legalize marijuana) we could fund education, social security, etc. and reduce taxes for most (95% at least) of Americans. Spend that money here (or keep it here in the form of lower taxes) and the economy would boom. Minimum wage wouldn't be an issue because employers would have to pay more. Legal immigration would be seen as necessary.

Go!Bears;842474950 said:

---

Would these charter schools be compelled to take any child that sought admission, the way public schools are?

Those could work, though there are issues with any system that allows participants to select out. The problem is that it is often the most motivated that leave. Their absence diminishes the experience for the rest. It is wrong to hold those students hostage, but it is important to recognize the impact that their leave-taking has, and then compensate for the loss. That is often the missing piece in the conflict around Charter Schools. What happens to the kids who are left behind (for whatever reason)?

---

Sure the charter school will take any child, but if the child is deemed as slowing the other children's learning they will not be aloud to continue at the charter school.

Unit2Sucks;842474954 said:

---

How is higher minimum wage going to help any middle class families (other than by helping their retail and fast food employed high school age children)? I don't think anyone is proposing to raise minimum wage to a level such that minimum wage employees will be middle class.

I think the problem goes much deeper. The reason the middle class is shrinking and being marginalized is because, as much as it pains me to say it, they are contributing less to the creation of wealth in this country than they have in the past. In 1950, 12% of our population worked on farms, now it's down to 2%. We can't go back to 1950. If you want the middle class to succeed in the United States, you need to think about what we can do to support that middle class to succeed against global competition. This idea that people can just show up to do an honest day's work and live the American dream is based on a fiction - the fiction is that we can artificially maintain the relative value of unskilled labor the way it used to be comparatively early in the industrial revolution (which is how I'd described post-war US). I don't believe we can redistribute our way out of this.

And let me add that I absolutely love Obamacare and think it's only a matter of time before the republicans realize how great it is for this country and decide to rebrand it in a partisan-neutral way. I bet they thought they were geniuses calling it Obamacare instead of ACA or something else a few years ago when they thought it might not be a success, but they badly misplayed their hand. In 5 years they will correct dems every time they hear the word "Obamacare" and they will attempt to recreate history to make it seem as though it was some grand bipartisan effort. You can count on it because that's what politicians do when they're on the wrong side of history. I would also love if it we as a country would spend more on education. I would love it if California would spend more, but recent history has shown otherwise. We raise taxes and spend less and less on education. More and more of our taxes are being redistributed to retirees who already milked our country for their entire working lives by supercharging the economy with government debt.

---

In regards to the minimum wage, it pushes wages up above just minimum wage levels too, so it can boost wages in the lower middle class. Terms like middle class are vague anyway, what's important is pursuing policies that reduce income inequality.

In regards to productivity I completely disagree with your view that average workers aren't as productive. This article has a great chart showing the connection between productivity and wages from 1948 - 1978 and the disconnect since then. The productivity of the American worker has continued to excel. Something else has changed. In my opinion, it is political power. If you look at the early labor movement, people complained that factory workers didn't deserve higher pay because it was unskilled work. The same talk today exists for retail labor. The fact is, companies can afford to pay their people more and it would be good for the economy if they did so.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/07/news/economy/compensation-productivity/

dajo9;842475006 said:

---

In regards to productivity I completely disagree with your view that average workers aren't as productive.

---

Sounds like you disagree with a view I don't hold. I don't think workers are less productive, I think they are contributing less to the creation of wealth. You can argue it's a tautology because wealth is a outcome, and I will grant you that it's hard to explain what I mean here.

We no longer have an economy where revenue or profits is tied to the number of employees you have. 13 workers at Instagram created an enormous amount of wealth in a very short period of time. I realize this upsets people and it seems unfair that so few can produce so much, but that's the world we live in and I don't think we can reverse time. I think the truly massive gains in productivity go unmeasured by these studies - I'm not talking about how many TPS reports people can crank out or how many calls an hour customer service reps can handle. I know it's not a popular opinion, but so be it.

jhbchristopher;842474991 said:

---

Sure the charter school will take any child, but if the child is deemed as slowing the other children's learning they will not be aloud to continue at the charter school.

---

Right, that is the problem. They dump that kid back into the public system, without any additional support, making their school better and the public school worse. There needs to be some system of support for the public schools who will have all of the difficult cases otherwise they will be placed in a downward spiral that will damage all the poor (both senses of the word) children stuck in them.

dajo9;842475006 said:

---

In regards to the minimum wage, it pushes wages up above just minimum wage levels too, so it can boost wages in the lower middle class. Terms like middle class are vague anyway, what's important is pursuing policies that reduce income inequality.

In regards to productivity I completely disagree with your view that average workers aren't as productive. This article has a great chart showing the connection between productivity and wages from 1948 - 1978 and the disconnect since then. The productivity of the American worker has continued to excel. Something else has changed. In my opinion, it is political power. If you look at the early labor movement, people complained that factory workers didn't deserve higher pay because it was unskilled work. The same talk today exists for retail labor. The fact is, companies can afford to pay their people more and it would be good for the economy if they did so.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/07/news/economy/compensation-productivity/

---

Problem is ifyou raise labor costs someone has to pay for it there by diluting their own wages. Next problems is jobs are outsourced. Next problem, especially true for retail we shop online. For the jobs that can't be outsourced robots and automation become a better alternative. Unskilled labor is in a no win situation it doesn't matter how productive unskilled american labor is, its unskilled labor, anyone can do it.

Unit2Sucks;842474954 said:

---

G!B - I agree with what you said, but it goes both ways. A lot of the consolidation of wealth at the top of our society has come from value created by selling premium American goods and services across the world. Would Apple, Facebook or Google be multi-hundred billion dollar organizations without a world market?

---

Google & FB don't make anything, so there were no jobs to export - but with a different trade policy Apple might do more of their manufacturing employing our fellow citizens. If we want free trade so the creative forces behind an iPad can make millions without making much of a contribution to our nation's economy, that's fine. If they want to live here, they can make their contribution through the tax system. My perspective is that access to the American market is a national asset. If you want in, pay for the privilege.

Go!Bears;842475029 said:

---

If we want free trade so the creative forces behind an iPad can make millions without making much of a contribution to our nation's economy, that's fine. If they want to live here, they can make their contribution through the tax system. My perspective is that access to the American market is a national asset. If you want in, pay for the privilege.

---

Sorry but do you really think Apple doesn't make "much of a contribution" to the US economy? I'll grant you this is propaganda, but it doesn't take much thought to understand that Apple contributes a lot to the economy and has created plenty of high wage jobs: https://www.apple.com/about/job-creation/

If you get rid of Apple, you are just handing over profits to foreign competition - would that be preferable? Maybe you're a samsung stockholder.

jhbchristopher;842475022 said:

---

Problem is ifyou raise labor costs someone has to pay for it there by diluting their own wages. Next problems is jobs are outsourced. Next problem, especially true for retail we shop online. For the jobs that can't be outsourced robots and automation become a better alternative. Unskilled labor is in a no win situation it doesn't matter how productive unskilled american labor is, its unskilled labor, anyone can do it.

---

I don't disagree with you that it is a problem without an easy solution. But to not try to find solutions is to give in to a future with a bleak national economy. If the vast majority of wealth is held by a few that will be the demise of America. The end of American exceptionalism.

interesting ...

The schools get more from the state for any special education kids and those kids are only taught in the public schools. But the publics want those kids because the money is A LOT more - even more so now since there has been additional funding for special ed. So that is not really an issue.

Unit2Sucks;842475039 said:

---

Sorry but do you really think Apple doesn't make "much of a contribution" to the US economy? I'll grant you this is propaganda, but it doesn't take much thought to understand that Apple contributes a lot to the economy and has created plenty of high wage jobs: https://www.apple.com/about/job-creation/

If you get rid of Apple, you are just handing over profits to foreign competition - would that be preferable? Maybe you're a samsung stockholder.

---

It's all relative. Relative to the size of the contribution they would make if their products were manufactured here. Now, I know that in this world that is not going to happen. My point was that the company can decide how it wants to do business and how much of it they want to do in the US. If they want to manufacture abroad, and make a smaller contribution as a result, that's fine. They will make a ton of money (they are btw) and if they choose to enjoy the security of this country and its legal system's protection of them and their wealth, they can make a contribution through the tax code. It is ironic to me that in some cases they manufacture abroad and expect the military that US taxpayers pay for to defend those foreign interests.

As for foreign competition, I am not opposed to a modest tariff.

jhbchristopher;842474991 said:

---

Sure the charter school will take any child, but if the child is deemed as slowing the other children's learning they will not be aloud to continue at the charter school.

---

Are you sure about this? My understanding is that charter schools in CA, like any public school, are required to take (and keep) students without regard to academic ability, disability and the like. If a kid is disabled, they get special grants from the state intended to cover the cost of the extra services required to educate that child. When a charter school is "oversubscribed" they have to hold a lottery - they don't give an entrance exam.

Unit2Sucks;842474954 said:

---

We can't go back to 1950. If you want the middle class to succeed in the United States, you need to think about what we can do to support that middle class to succeed against global competition. This idea that people can just show up to do an honest day's work and live the American dream is based on a fiction - the fiction is that we can artificially maintain the relative value of unskilled labor the way it used to be comparatively early in the industrial revolution (which is how I'd described post-war US). I don't believe we can redistribute our way out of this.

---

This is a very good point, and a sad one. A giant share of our population consists of the sort of folks who used to graduate high school, serve in the armed forces for a few years, go get a union job at the auto factory, buy a brick row house, get married, raise a few kids, work for 35 years and have a modest but stable retirement. No more. Now those folks are getting out of high school or the army and struggle to get a menial service job at Starbucks. And that's because they are competing against college graduates for those jobs. LA County put out a call to hire firefighters not too long ago and six thousand guys showed up. Ever notice that a generation ago, the person behind the counter at McDonald's was a teenager? Now they are grown ass adults. It ain't a way to pay for prom, it's their livelihood. How many of you middle agers have friends whose children finished college, and basically did everything right in their life, and had to move back home because they can't find a decent job? Studies show most of them will forever lag the lifetime earnings of people who begin "careers" right out of school.

The middle class is shrinking before our eyes and that is going to be one of the biggest challenges of the coming generation. It is going to cause all sorts of social problems. People who are not hopeful about their economic opportunities are less likely to get married, start or raise families in two parent households, work hard, etc., etc., etc. The attitude becomes, F--- it, no matter what I do, I can't get ahead. I'm not invested in this society or this country. Organized crime flourishes. Large scale protests and violence becomes more commonplace. The "Occupy" movement will be seen as a precursor. Even the rich will pine for the good old days when they could live life without having to deal with the inconvenience of a large underclass.

So how do we head off that doomsday scenario? As you point out, our economy is structurally different than it was the last century and we just don't need a big head count in a factory making widgets to create wealth; we have 13 hipsters at Instagram creating the same amount (albeit only for themselves and a few VC down on Sand Hill Road). What to do about this? Adopt more protectionist economic policies? Cancel all the free trade agreements and throw up tariffs and trade barriers? Why won't some wealth redistribution work? If everyone had almost-free health care and almost-free college and a nice earned income tax credit, that low wage paycheck might almost seem middle class.

We need to find a way to provide regular folks - the kind who have done everything right in life - the opportunity to make a decent living. I'm not an economist but I like to thing about this kind of stuff. How do we save us from ourselves? Maybe the geniuses at instagram have some ideas.

MisterNoodle;842475111 said:

---

This is a very good point, and a sad one. A giant share of our population consists of the sort of folks who used to graduate high school, serve in the armed forces for a few years, go get a union job at the auto factory, buy a brick row house, get married, raise a few kids, work for 35 years and have a modest but stable retirement. No more. Now those folks are getting out of high school or the army and struggle to get a menial service job at Starbucks. And that's because they are competing against college graduates for those jobs. LA County put out a call to hire firefighters not too long ago and six thousand guys showed up. Ever notice that a generation ago, the person behind the counter at McDonald's was a teenager? Now they are grown ass adults. It ain't a way to pay for prom, it's their livelihood. How many of you middle agers have friends whose children finished college, and basically did everything right in their life, and had to move back home because they can't find a decent job? Studies show most of them will forever lag the lifetime earnings of people who begin "careers" right out of school.

The middle class is shrinking before our eyes and that is going to be one of the biggest challenges of the coming generation. It is going to cause all sorts of social problems. People who are not hopeful about their economic opportunities are less likely to get married, start or raise families in two parent households, work hard, etc., etc., etc. The attitude becomes, F--- it, no matter what I do, I can't get ahead. I'm not invested in this society or this country. Organized crime flourishes. Large scale protests and violence becomes more commonplace. The "Occupy" movement will be seen as a precursor. Even the rich will pine for the good old days when they could live life without having to deal with the inconvenience of a large underclass.

So how do we head off that doomsday scenario? As you point out, our economy is structurally different than it was the last century and we just don't need a big head count in a factory making widgets to create wealth; we have 13 hipsters at Instagram creating the same amount (albeit only for themselves and a few VC down on Sand Hill Road). What to do about this? Adopt more protectionist economic policies? Cancel all the free trade agreements and throw up tariffs and trade barriers? Why won't some wealth redistribution work? If everyone had almost-free health care and almost-free college and a nice earned income tax credit, that low wage paycheck might almost seem middle class.

We need to find a way to provide regular folks - the kind who have done everything right in life - the opportunity to make a decent living. I'm not an economist but I like to thing about this kind of stuff. How do we save us from ourselves? Maybe the geniuses at instagram have some ideas.

---

Raise the minimum wage. People in retail should earn more. 100 years ago the same arguments were made about why factory workers shouldn't earn more that are being espoused today about retail workers. Pay them more, watch the economy prosper - even for the few remaining Mom & Pop stores that are out there.

Also, provide healthcare to everybody. Medicare for everybody. The working can pay for it out of taxes and the non-working will still get it (kids, seniors, disabled, and yes the unemployed).

Find ways to make childcare and higher education more affordable to the average family. Have governments hire people to rebuild our infrastructure. These are solveable problems really.

dajo9;842475157 said:

---

Raise the minimum wage. People in retail should earn more. 100 years ago the same arguments were made about why factory workers shouldn't earn more that are being espoused today about retail workers. Pay them more, watch the economy prosper - even for the few remaining Mom & Pop stores that are out there.

Also, provide healthcare to everybody. Medicare for everybody. The working can pay for it out of taxes and the non-working will still get it (kids, seniors, disabled, and yes the unemployed).

Find ways to make childcare and higher education more affordable to the average family. Have governments hire people to rebuild our infrastructure. These are solveable problems really.

---

Ok, so we have 35 customer service and ten warehouse personnel. At current wages and benefits, it is more economical to expand e commerce and automate the main warehouse. Margins are slipping. Soon, 45 people may lose their jobs for the very reasons you cite that you can't even seem to connect to negative consequences.

When Henry Ford built his assembly lines he started paying his line workers $5 per day. Everyone thought he was crazy for paying so much but he was able to build a successful company doing so and his act was huge for forming the middle class at the time.

For you history buffs, this book really shows how 99% have been so easily had: http://www.npr.org/books/titles/396363099/one-nation-under-god-how-corporate-america-invented-christian-america

Years ago, Mama asked why I so mistrusted the rich. This.

Oski87;842475071 said:

---

The schools get more from the state for any special education kids and those kids are only taught in the public schools. But the publics want those kids because the money is A LOT more - even more so now since there has been additional funding for special ed. So that is not really an issue.

---

There is a huge gulf between the high performing kids that charter schools want (future college students) and kids that require special education.

oski003;842475162 said:

---

Ok, so we have 35 customer service and ten warehouse personnel. At current wages and benefits, it is more economical to expand e commerce and automate the main warehouse. Margins are slipping. Soon, 45 people may lose their jobs for the very reasons you cite that you can't even seem to connect to negative consequences.

---

Yes, due to technology some of those people are going to lose their jobs. In my scenario they will still have healthcare, affordable childcare, and access to affordable education to potentially retrain. Some of them will wind up in retail, where they will have a higher wage.

Go!Bears;842474944 said:

---

Well said, TB

My perspective: We sold them out with our trade policies that get me very cheap consumer goods, at the cost of my neighbor's job. Now, you can argue for the advantages of "Free-Trade" and I will concede that there are many, but they come at a cost. Many of us reap the rewards and give no thought to those in our society that are paying the cost. We pretend that we deserve those rewards, the result of our "good life choices" and that the poor also deserve their lot. I see an element of luck in my current situation, and an element of privilege. I feel an obligation to help people who were not as lucky as I was.

Here's the sticky part: I think we all have that obligation, whether one feels it or not and I am comfortable compelling people (through taxation) to contribute. After all, I am compelled to contribute to pay the cost of all of the wars. To me it is all the same.

---

The outsourcing of manufacturing jobs due to trade agreements may apply on a national basis, but not in Cali.

In the '70s, Los Angeles County used to love to tell everyone that if it was a state, it would have the third highest manufacturing state. Now it would be the 51st state. The change is not due to excessive wage increases thanks in part due to immigration depressing wages. The County lost most of its manufacturing before NAFTA existed. I represent an entity that grants industrial connections for waste water (those of you who know manufacturing know that essentially all manufactures have these hook-ups), and the permits went away in the '80s and early 90's. As any Los Angeles corporate attorney well tell you, its was the regulatory environment that drove this business away (combination of environmental, workers comp, labor rules, land regulation (if it takes years of CEQA to expand, you expand elsewhere), etc.). Who were the governors during this period? Brown (for just a few years), Deukmijean, and Wilson. Food for thought.

wifeisafurd;842475203 said:

---

The outsourcing of manufacturing jobs due to trade agreements may apply on a national basis, but not in Cali.

In the '70s, Los Angeles County used to love to tell everyone that if it was a state, it would have the third highest manufacturing state. Now it would be the 51st state. The change is not due to excessive wage increases thanks in part due to immigration depressing wages. The County lost most of its manufacturing before NAFTA existed. I represent an entity that grants industrial connections for waste water (those of you who know manufacturing know that essentially all manufactures have these hook-ups), and the permits went away in the '80s and early 90's. As any Los Angeles corporate attorney well tell you, its was the regulatory environment that drove this business away (combination of environmental, workers comp, labor rules, land regulation (if it takes years of CEQA to expand, you expand elsewhere), etc.). Who were the governors during this period? Brown (for just a few years), Deukmijean, and Wilson. Food for thought.

---

Only Sriracha survived

In all seriousness, I'm not expert enough to fully respond to what wife is saying except to say that there has to be a place for environmental regulations. The air in the Inland Empire is so much clearer now than it used to be thanks to regulations. Also, we don't want fertilizer factories blowing up near residential areas like what happened in Texas recently.

dajo9;842475185 said:

---

Yes, due to technology some of those people are going to lose their jobs. In my scenario they will still have healthcare, affordable childcare, and access to affordable education to potentially retrain. Some of them will wind up in retail, where they will have a higher wage.

---

Yes, most of them will lose their jobs. Minimum wage increases and a 60% increase in health care costs per employee from 2014 to 2015 has put a seriously dent in our ability to employee people and still make money. I think the nail in the coffin will be the next minimum wage hike and the fact that a major competitor, a national business, has a better e-commerce site and charges 10% less for its products. That competitor doesn't offer the customer service we do. Maybe we should put that we are employing more people and helping the economy in our sales pitch?

Secondly, retail is going wayside. Brick and mortar shops can halve their associates with technology that informs customers of the products. Amazon, with practically zero sales associates, is kicking retail's butts.


I suppose massive redistribution of wealth could provide for all of the unemployed. That, or having everyone work 25 hour work-weeks, which already seems to happen and has "miraculously" lowered unemployment. Smoke and mirrors baby!

jhbchristopher;842474933 said:

---

Out of curiosity are you for or against charter schools?

---

All charter schools are is another corporate money grab. A work-around to get the former profession of teaching to be just another at-will, lowest common denominator job. Look at private preschools for a look into the future of teaching: low-paid employees who have no future. Ironic that early childhood education ranks LAST in salaries. We SAY we want high-quality teachers, but then make it the least lucrative career. Funny how the private sector mantra "you HAVE to pay high salaries to attract talent" falls on its face when it comes to teaching.

Diane Ravitch exposes most of the myths of charter schools.

Edit: By extension, I'm strongly against a voucher system as well. Instead of educating kids, a voucher system will simply be used to enrich private schools (yet ANOTHER tax subsidy for the private sector) and leave the middle and lower rungs of the economic ladder saddled with even MORE education costs. Now instead of just worrying about paying for college, parents will have to worry about preschool, elementary, middle and high school education as well! What a financial disaster. Currently, private high school in the bay area costs about $20k/year, with College Prep in Oakland at $37k. Almost $160k for four years of private high school!

Edit 2: And do we really want to support schools that evade fair employment laws by requiring "employees" sign morality clauses? And by "employees," I don't mean "employees," I mean the people who get paid to teach there. The diocese doesn't have to consider them employees, from what I've read. They consider teachers clergy or whatever so they don't have to adhere to fair employment laws. Nice.

oski003;842475224 said:

---

Yes, most of them will lose their jobs. Minimum wage increases and a 60% increase in health care costs per employee from 2014 to 2015 has put a seriously dent in our ability to employee people and still make money. I think the nail in the coffin will be the next minimum wage hike and the fact that a major competitor, a national business, has a better e-commerce site and charges 10% less for its products. That competitor doesn't offer the customer service we do. Maybe we should put that we are employing more people and helping the economy in our sales pitch?

Secondly, retail is going wayside. Brick and mortar shops can halve their associates with technology that informs customers of the products. Amazon, with practically zero sales associates, is kicking retail's butts.


I suppose massive redistribution of wealth could provide for all of the unemployed. That, or having everyone work 25 hour work-weeks, which already seems to happen and has "miraculously" lowered unemployment. Smoke and mirrors baby!

---

A 60% increase in health care costs is completely at odds with what most of the country is experiencing. Overall, I think your company is being beaten out by competitors with better technology and you are focusing on policy you don't like.

Technology is going to continue to be a major disruptive force allowing companies to do things with less people. What is your solution? $3/hour wages?

What's middle class? No real definition which is why all politicians love the term. But if we look at median income it's around $52,000-so maybe, plus or minus 20%-but I expect a lot of people making 100K would consider themselves "middle class."

I think Dajo's minimum wage and health care arguments certainly benefit the working and non working poor but am not sure about the "middle class." For the person making $52,000, his income has declined 8% since 2007 so there's a pay cut right there which isn't coming back with minimum wage. I'm not sure how the Obamacare subsidies fade out but doubt there is a big subsidy at $50,000 which means he/she may be out of pocket for additional health. Offsetting falling gas prices, California increased the gas tax in 2015 to "fight global warming". Don't even start with housing. Government can do some re-distribution and credits but until there is increased upward demand for wages, this will fester and act its way out on the street, the ballot box, and the emergency room.

dajo9;842475231 said:

---

A 60% increase in health care costs is completely at odds with what most of the country is experiencing. Overall, I think your company is being beaten out by competitors with better technology and you are focusing on policy you don't like.

Technology is going to continue to be a major disruptive force allowing companies to do things with less people. What is your solution? $3/hour wages?

---

Well, we can pay people as long as we can still make a profit. I see that you can exaggerate and say $3/hr. How about $15/hr? If we paid $15/hr to our minimum wage employees, we would have to rapidly adapt our strategy and immediately lay off about 40 people. Otherwise, we shut our doors or we sell to someone who will cut half of our workforce. Is that what you want?

1) We can beat out that competitor with customer service. However, that customer service is becoming too expensive.

2) The competitors knocking at our gates are national and international companies. They have much better economies of scale. Every dollar they spend on ecommerce supports 500+ locations. Every dollar I spend on ecommerce supports 5 locations.

3) We delayed the healthcare increase a year, so it hit us in 2015. If you really believe that health care costs did not increase substantially for businesses, you are incredibly nave and misinformed.


Our customers are being taken over by large chains. Our competitors are being taken over by large chains. These large companies are substituting people for technology.

Raising the minimum wage increases the rate of the technology takeover.

20 years ago the minimum wage was $4.25. 15 years ago it was $6.25. A year ago it was $8.00. Today, it is $9.00. In January 2016, it will be $10.00.

That, and the substantial health care increase, is remarkable and greatly affects my company's ability to employ people.

It will never happen, but I would like to see income tax take into account some measure of regional cost of living adjustments. You might be well off making $100k living in Oklahoma, but not in coastal California. I'm not sure how much of an adjustment there should be, but it's quite clear to me that after taxes families who make $200k in the bay area don't feel like they're living the dream their top 4% household income might give them in other locales. Once you responsibly fund your 401(k) and college funds for a couple of kids, etc. you're comfortable but not living the high life. Now, I will grant you that your marginal state and federal tax rate is only 38% at that level so you're not getting hit with the highest federal tax rates, but you also have to deal with AMT.

oski003;842475276 said:

---

20 years ago the minimum wage was $4.25. 15 years ago it was $6.25. A year ago it was $8.00. Today, it is $9.00. In January 2016, it will be $10.00.

That, and the substantial health care increase, is remarkable and greatly affects my company's ability to employ people.

---

Just curious - what does it cost your company all-in per hour to employ people at minimum wage on a full-time basis (including payroll taxes, health care and other benefits)?

I assume you also provide your minimum wage employees a robust pension so that they can retire at 50 and earn 90% of their previous wages. Just kidding about that last part.

:cheer

TandemBear;842475230 said:

---

All charter schools are is another corporate money grab. A work-around to get the former profession of teaching to be just another at-will, lowest common denominator job. Look at private preschools for a look into the future of teaching: low-paid employees who have no future. Ironic that early childhood education ranks LAST in salaries. We SAY we want high-quality teachers, but then make it the least lucrative career. Funny how the private sector mantra "you HAVE to pay high salaries to attract talent" falls on its face when it comes to teaching.

Diane Ravitch exposes most of the myths of charter schools.

Edit: By extension, I'm strongly against a voucher system as well. Instead of educating kids, a voucher system will simply be used to enrich private schools (yet ANOTHER tax subsidy for the private sector) and leave the middle and lower rungs of the economic ladder saddled with even MORE education costs. Now instead of just worrying about paying for college, parents will have to worry about preschool, elementary, middle and high school education as well! What a financial disaster. Currently, private high school in the bay area costs about $20k/year, with College Prep in Oakland at $37k. Almost $160k for four years of private high school!

Edit 2: And do we really want to support schools that evade fair employment laws by requiring "employees" sign morality clauses? And by "employees," I don't mean "employees," I mean the people who get paid to teach there. The diocese doesn't have to consider them employees, from what I've read. They consider teachers clergy or whatever so they don't have to adhere to fair employment laws. Nice.

---

Sorry your experience with charter schools have been poor. My son's experience has been terrific. And it has nothing to do with your corporate money grab statement. Generalizations tend to be wrong. And they suggest opinion not fact. My son's school is run by the local school district and its full of kids whose parents care about their kids. Our school is more than half Mexican american, some of whom are one generation removed from field work. The principal was a Mexican immigrant. He gets the kids to give their best. He also encourages the few problem kids to get with the program or leave. The kids are expected to succeed and are treated that way. I am very happy my son has this choice. And it hasn't harmed the public schools. It is one.

wifeisafurd;842475203 said:

---

The change is not due to excessive wage increases thanks in part due to immigration depressing wages. The County lost most of its manufacturing before NAFTA existed. ...its was the regulatory environment that drove this business away (combination of environmental, workers comp, labor rules, land regulation

---

The regulations are definitely part of the equation, but as Dajo points out, we want them in this country to create an acceptable living and work environment. My issue with trade policy is that it did not adequately account for what we would consider "minimum standards" and encourage trade with countries that would approach our standards. So now our businesses compete with countries that have no standards and we give them a free pass into our market. For what? What did the average American get in exchange for that access? Some of us got cheap prices. Others got a pink slip.

Go!Bears;842475029 said:

---

Google & FB don't make anything, so there were no jobs to export - but with a different trade policy Apple might do more of their manufacturing employing our fellow citizens.

---

Do you have a cell phone and if so, where was it assembled? Motorola made a phone in Texas but unfortunately it didn't help sales.

oski003;842475276 said:

---

Well, we can pay people as long as we can still make a profit. I see that you can exaggerate and say $3/hr. How about $15/hr? If we paid $15/hr to our minimum wage employees, we would have to rapidly adapt our strategy and immediately lay off about 40 people. Otherwise, we shut our doors or we sell to someone who will cut half of our workforce. Is that what you want?

1) We can beat out that competitor with customer service. However, that customer service is becoming too expensive.

2) The competitors knocking at our gates are national and international companies. They have much better economies of scale. Every dollar they spend on ecommerce supports 500+ locations. Every dollar I spend on ecommerce supports 5 locations.

3) We delayed the healthcare increase a year, so it hit us in 2015. If you really believe that health care costs did not increase substantially for businesses, you are incredibly nave and misinformed.


Our customers are being taken over by large chains. Our competitors are being taken over by large chains. These large companies are substituting people for technology.

Raising the minimum wage increases the rate of the technology takeover.

20 years ago the minimum wage was $4.25. 15 years ago it was $6.25. A year ago it was $8.00. Today, it is $9.00. In January 2016, it will be $10.00.

That, and the substantial health care increase, is remarkable and greatly affects my company's ability to employ people.

---

It would seem you have a business model without opportunity for growth or market share? If so, what are your options besides having profits pinched-can you add value in any other way vis a vis your competitors or can you cut costs dramatically by relocation?

At minimum wage in Oakland, using a Kaiser silver level plan for an average age of 40 years old and with payroll taxes, workers comp (his employees in customer service are minimal but the warehouse workers are about one third of their income in Work Comp), along with the new sick leave law and the state mandated disability plan, holiday pay, etc are about 19.25 per hour. At $15 per hour minimum wage, that would increase to $23.53 per hour. So at 2080 hours per year (not including OT) that works out to $48,951. That does not include any additional benefits such as dental, vision, life, disability, 401k match, vacation time or educational support - which may add an additional 10%.

oski003;842475224 said:

---

Yes, most of them will lose their jobs. Minimum wage increases and a 60% increase in health care costs per employee from 2014 to 2015 has put a seriously dent in our ability to employee people and still make money. I think the nail in the coffin will be the next minimum wage hike and the fact that a major competitor, a national business, has a better e-commerce site and charges 10% less for its products. That competitor doesn't offer the customer service we do. Maybe we should put that we are employing more people and helping the economy in our sales pitch?

Secondly, retail is going wayside. Brick and mortar shops can halve their associates with technology that informs customers of the products. Amazon, with practically zero sales associates, is kicking retail's butts.


I suppose massive redistribution of wealth could provide for all of the unemployed. That, or having everyone work 25 hour work-weeks, which already seems to happen and has "miraculously" lowered unemployment. Smoke and mirrors baby!

---

You've made a really good argument for single payer health care. Instead of fighting to suppress the lowest wage workers, perhaps your efforts would be better directed toward demanding health care overhaul in the country. It's a huge financial drain on businesses and individuals. One third of our three trillion dollars* in annual health care expenditure goes toward the insurance industry - which doesn't even deliver health care.

There are your savings, not suppressing the poverty-level worker.

*Pre Obamacare. I don't know the current figure, but it doesn't really matter because it's still a huge number. The insurance industry is a "jobs program" we can afford to lose in our health care system.

dajo9;842475220 said:

---

Only Sriracha survived

In all seriousness, I'm not expert enough to fully respond to what wife is saying except to say that there has to be a place for environmental regulations. The air in the Inland Empire is so much clearer now than it used to be thanks to regulations. Also, we don't want fertilizer factories blowing up near residential areas like what happened in Texas recently.

---

Agree, there are trade offs involved in the regulatory process. You want cleaner air, businesses that emit pollutants that don't operate on large margins like refineries will leave, and new polluting businesses will start elsewhere. Just one of many examples of regulation having a common good, but impacting business and jobs. Not making value judgments per se (my largest client technically was a regulator). What I am not buying the trade policy killed manufacturing in Cali argument. The manufacturing had to a great extent left before the Clinton and Bush trade treaties started.