Los Angeles to raise minimum wage to $15/hour by 2020

[fantastic4our]

At first thought, I wasn't a fan, but considering it's LA, I guess I'm good with it.

I would not want to see this in the south. You got college educated people making $40K, which would only be a few bucks above minimum wage.

And this is really most people's problem with the minimum raise increase, regardless of what "facts" folk try to spout.

Cost of living in this country has increased tremendously in this country, but wages have not kept up at all or anywhere close. The increase doesn't even begin to match COL increase.

 

[fontaine]

And this is really most people's problem with the minimum raise increase, regardless of what "facts" folk try to spout.

Cost of living in this country has increased tremendously in this country, but wages have not kept up at all or anywhere close. The increase doesn't even begin to match COL increase.

look, I agree with some of the points...

But is it fair to say that the college degrees value has diminish just based on the growing percent of people having them?



Honestly, I don't think we should get mad at employers for paying low salaries to people out of college

I think we should focus on these COLLEGES and their tuition rates FAR outpacig every other inflation metric in the country exponentially...

Its laughable how they get away with it. Lol

 

[GTA 809]

This hurts low level employees that don't have any skills.
Everyone else should win

 

[plansb]

But is it fair to say that the college degrees value has diminish just based on the growing percent of people having them?

I think it really depends on the degree, I wouldn't say that is true for all degrees. I know when I was undergrad it seemed like the majority of people I knew/met were studying for degrees that were probably devalued, imo.

 

[youngdoc]

Is LA a good job market in general?

No.

It's actually the most unaffordable city in the country when you look at avg salary and COL

Disheartening. Thought about moving out there.

Yeah I wouldn't do it without a good job lined up.

I'm born and raised here and might have to leave after residency/fellowship bc of the job market

 

[blastercombo]

they can raize it, just deport.

Sure, and then all those jobs people refuse to do ..... they'll stl refuse to do.

 

[truth-serum]

I hope you're joking cuz that will not be the case

I am happy for the single mothers, and people struggling that work at lesser accredited work places. With $15 an hour, you can pay bills and rent out an apartment and eventually get transportation for yourself. I am all for this.

 

[truth-serum]

This is not a federal mandate. States operate independently. What California decides doesn't affect Seattle or any other state

People who live in seatle or any other city with a high min wage, did that just increase the wages of people making less than the new min? Or did that increase all low-mid range workers? For instance if someone made 15 an hour before min wage was increased to $15, did that guy end up getting a raise? Or did he go learn a skill for nothing?

 

[fantastic4our]

And this is really most people's problem with the minimum raise increase, regardless of what "facts" folk try to spout.

Cost of living in this country has increased tremendously in this country, but wages have not kept up at all or anywhere close. The increase doesn't even begin to match COL increase.

look, I agree with some of the points...

But is it fair to say that the college degrees value has diminish just based on the growing percent of people having them?



Honestly, I don't think we should get mad at employers for paying low salaries to people out of college

I think we should focus on these COLLEGES and their tuition rates FAR outpacig every other inflation metric in the country exponentially...

Its laughable how they get away with it. Lol

I agree with you here. The market is saturated with them, and considering how much they cost, it might not pay for itself.

I was reading something they compared someone working fresh out of high school into retirement and saving a certain amount, as opposed to someone going to college, taking on student loan debt and then entering the workplace. Depending on the wages and amount saved, it's easily possible for the HS graduate to surpass the college graduate in retirement funds due to the extra years working + lack of college debt, even with a lower overall pay.

 

[ryda421]

this is going to be bad

 

[crcballer55]

 

 
You see restaurants already rolling out ipads to order food, relegating waiters to food runners.

Why wait for someone to punch some buttons at the counter when you can sit at your table and order from your phone and let them just call your name when the food is ready?

The unions have already bought and paid for LA government, yet LA is increasingly going backwards with all of the protests and strikes. Why not work to make the education system in the city better so they don't have to get minimum wage jobs?

Yet 30 miles south, Irvine could be repealing their living wage in the state's strongest red county's most influential navy blue city:

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/business-662247-irvine-living.html

Society has always advanced through competition, but instead, government wants to level the playing field.

Higher income = more taxes for the government.  Essentially, the government is taking another piece of the pie from the private sector.  This also helps stimulate spending power, which drives the US economy, and thus the world economy.

0% fed funds rate has done nothing.

How does government taking money help drive the economy? Help me with that one? We already had a stimulus program in 2009 that the Feds spent $800B on and we are still in the slowest growth recovery in the past century.

If anything, government has created more low income workers with entitlement programs. If you can help yourself, why do you need the government or your union to help you?

0% fed rates have not only done nothing, they've hurt the economy. Look what Paul Volcker did in the early 80's by raising rates to near 20%. Yes, it caused a terrible recession during 83, but it set the stage for almost 2 decades of growth. Where do we go from here? We can't decrease them below 0, because then there's NO incentive to save which only mortgages our future more than we've done already.

The solution to helping low income workers is not to hand them more money because the money will just be handed right back to those who know how to manage it. Some people will always be bad managers of their resources. There's nothing we the people or our governments can do to help that.

 

[crcballer55]

 

 

I
It kinda assumes over the next 4 years business will no nothing to react

No current jobs could be lost under this plan, it is just that less new ones will created (especially if business substitute towards over solutions and illegal labor)

BTW LA probably consulted with high level economist to make sure they could pull it off

These is not politicians shooting in the dark

-Almost companies will result in companies enjoying a larger supply of labor, if you got a knucklehead you can fire him without care because you know you someone is ready and willing to take his job.

That's the thing. Our mayor doesn't really have a high level economist (because he hasn't hired me yet [emoji]128523[/emoji]). This move was strictly more political. There is no foundation besides the belief that minimum wage workers are not gonna be poor no more. And they believe it too.

BULL ****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One of the most famous economics papers in the last 25 years refutes your very point you make. Card and Kreuger

Kreuger is now Obama's chief economist and David Card I know for a fact consults for Cali, San Fran and LA area governments

No shade, but miss me wit that Principles of Micro analyst you trying to push

Dat Supply Side Economics is a helluva drug. Keep twerkin dat Laffer Curve brahs, you day it gonna bust it open for you'll

I fail to see how they can be an authority in economics when those are the areas they've consulted on. California is a mess. LA is a mess. SF has gentrified more than any other city besides DC over the past decade.

To put the Reagan economy next to our current economy, i'll just leave this here.
[h1]OBAMA vs. REAGAN on GDP GROWTH — NOT EVEN CLOSE[/h1]
Obama’s just like Reagan… Except when he isn’t.


Trickle Down Economics versus Trickle Down Socialism

Ronald Reagan’s economic plan saw GDP surge at a 3.5% clip – 4.9% after the recession. That’s a 32% bump.

During the Obama years, thanks to his big government policies, the US economy has stalled. Today the quarterly GDP was announced. The GDP for the first quarter of 2015 braked more sharply than expected at only a .2% pace. The US economy has grown an anemic 9.6% during the Obama years (excluding today’s dismal number).

Of course, Obama’s record on job growth is also much worse than President Reagan’s record.

Net job growth has declined under Obama. By the end of the second year of their terms as president, economic growth under Reagan averaged 7.1% , under Obama an anemic 2.8%. (IJ Review)

And today, more than five years into the tepid recovery, labor-force participation remains at its lowest level since 1978 during the Carter years.

 

[bravelude]

 
How does government taking money help drive the economy? Help me with that one? We already had a stimulus program in 2009 that the Feds spent $800B on and we are still in the slowest growth recovery in the past century.

If anything, government has created more low income workers with entitlement programs. If you can help yourself, why do you need the government or your union to help you?

0% fed rates have not only done nothing, they've hurt the economy. Look what Paul Volcker did in the early 80's by raising rates to near 20%. Yes, it caused a terrible recession during 83, but it set the stage for almost 2 decades of growth. Where do we go from here? We can't decrease them below 0, because then there's NO incentive to save which only mortgages our future more than we've done already.

The solution to helping low income workers is not to hand them more money because the money will just be handed right back to those who know how to manage it. Some people will always be bad managers of their resources. There's nothing we the people or our governments can do to help that.

That's exactly my point.  Government has gone away from capitalistic views, and instead, have come in to 'tinker' the invisible hand.  Technology will always replace jobs.  We all know that.

The fact is, the FEDs can do nothing anymore, other than maybe 'penalize' you for keeping money in the bank like our Euro counter parts.  But it's not only the US that's struggling, we are in a global crisis with debt eatting up and destroying society.

 

[Xennial]

What they need to do is stop giving out student loans

 

[jewseejay]

View media item 1541037I predict:
-Unemployment
-Increase in Small business Bankruptcy
YOU CAN QUOTE ME.
On another note. This is a great time to invest in LA Real estate. I predict an increase in LA property value.
YOU CAN QUOTE ME ON THAT TOO.

I predict an increase in San Diego real estate value. NYC and Charlotte too

Am i a prophet yet?

Ok ok... i predict Newport stock will increase 10-20% in the year immeadiately following the wage hike. E&J too

Quote me

 

[ScroogeMcBuckz]

So what will the adjustment be for the guy making $15 right now, $21?

 

[fontaine]

I fail to see how they can be an authority in economics when those are the areas they've consulted on. California is a mess. LA is a mess. SF has gentrified more than any other city besides DC over the past decade.

To put the Reagan economy next to our current economy, i'll just leave this here.

[h1]OBAMA vs. REAGAN on GDP GROWTH — NOT EVEN CLOSE[/h1]

Obama’s just like Reagan… Except when he isn’t.


Trickle Down Economics versus Trickle Down Socialism
Ronald Reagan’s economic plan saw GDP surge at a 3.5% clip – 4.9% after the recession. That’s a 32% bump.
During the Obama years, thanks to his big government policies, the US economy has stalled. Today the quarterly GDP was announced. The GDP for the first quarter of 2015 braked more sharply than expected at only a .2% pace. The US economy has grown an anemic 9.6% during the Obama years (excluding today’s dismal number).
Of course, Obama’s record on job growth is also much worse than President Reagan’s record.



Net job growth has declined under Obama. By the end of the second year of their terms as president, economic growth under Reagan averaged 7.1% , under Obama an anemic 2.8%. (IJ Review)
And today, more than five years into the tepid recovery, labor-force participation remains at its lowest level since 1978 during the Carter years.

come on CRC...

You're better than this

You know damn well technology, college tuition, the stock markets, and financial vehicles are totally different...

Not to mention it is harder to grow as you get larger...

That's not even close to being fair, bro.

I don't know politics, but I know a little about economics and finance.

And that's not apples to apples

More like apples to burgers

 

[RustyShackleford]

^^^^ Ricky ain't eem take dude on.

I have heard that schpeell before, from Ted Cruz ,and I'm just let a fact checking website shed some light on why this is such a bias analyst. Also I peeped who wrote that article. A far right dude your uses terms like "Liberal declare War" and "Global Warming Alarmist"

Not taking into account that Reagan was able to cook for all 8 years with a cooperative Congress, yet Obama has only had 2 years.

In addition to their respective messes were different, and the participation rate was already predicted to fall .

AND some give credit to Obama'a stimulus and spending from preventing and even worst recessions. But I'm not gonna post Krugman on here, cause you know we all know his bias

CRC your side was able to cook freely for years and had the USA and Cali in shambles brah. Progressives had to come along to fix the mess your peeps caused. And yet you want to rant about how bought the left is and how they destroying growth. Mannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

Anyway, here is the link, read up. LINK

 

[gwap]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhar...performs-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/
[h1]Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing[/h1]
Deitrick:  ”President Reagan has long been considered the best modern economic President.  So we compared his performance dealing with the oil-induced recession of the 1980s with that of President Obama and his performance during this ‘Great Recession.’ 

“As this unemployment chart shows, President Obama’s job creation kept unemployment from peaking at as high a level as President Reagan, and promoted people into the workforce faster than President Reagan.

“President Obama has achieved a 6.1% unemployment rate in his sixth year, fully one year faster than President Reagan did.  At this point in his presidency, President Reagan was still struggling with 7.1% unemployment, and he did not reach into the mid-low 6% range for another full year.  So, despite today’s number, the Obama administration has still done considerably better at job creating and reducing unemployment than did the Reagan administration.

Deitrick:  ”While most Americans think they are not involved with the stock market, truthfully they are.  Via their 401K, pension plan and employer savings accounts 2/3 of Americans have a clear vested interest in stock performance.

“As this chart shows, over the first 67 months of their presidencies there is a clear “winner” from an investor’s viewpoint. A dollar invested when Reagan assumed the presidency would have yielded a staggering 190% return.  Such returns were unheard of prior to his leadership.

“However, it is undeniable that President Obama has surpassed the previous president.  Investors have gained a remarkable 220% over the last 5.5 years!  This level of investor growth is unprecedented by any administration, and has proven quite beneficial for everyone.

“The labor participation rate adds in jobless part time workers and those in marginal work situations with those seeking full time work.  This is not a “hidden” unemployment.  It is a measure tracked since 1900  and called ‘U6.’ today by the BLS.

“As this chart shows,  the difference between reported unemployment and all unemployment – including those on the fringe of the workforce – has remained pretty constant since 1994.

 

[bravelude]

waste time comparing growth of jobs in that context. not even the same era

 

[RustyShackleford]

^^^ Tell that to CRC too doe

 

[RustyShackleford]

BULL ****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


One of the most famous economics papers in the last 25 years refutes your very point you make. Card and Kreuger


Kreuger is now Obama's chief economist and David Card I know for a fact consults for Cali, San Fran and LA area governments


No shade, but miss me wit that Principles of Micro analyst you trying to push


Dat Supply Side Economics is a helluva drug. Keep twerkin dat Laffer Curve brahs, you day it gonna bust it open for you'll

Please amuse me by telling me you actually went to a university and studied economics.

Just realized username is the same cat that argues about EVERYTHING . 

With that being said, Heres a cool article that addresses the fault in the Card and Kreuger paper.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/08/31/alan-kruegers-mistake-on-the-minimum-wage/.

You can quote papi again….just in case you didn't see the pipe print the first time 

 

I predict:

-Unemployment

-Increase in Small business Bankruptcy

YOU CAN QUOTE ME.

On another note. This is a great time to invest in LA Real estate. I predict an increase in LA property value.

YOU CAN QUOTE ME ON THAT TOO.

-I did

-But anyway I didn't mention that paper to start an econ dong measuring contest. I don't even buy their findings 100%. It was specifically to refute your point that this move was strictly based on politics and had no foundation. Which I believe I have accomplished since you retort was posting a article criticizing the paper. Instead of arguing why it has nothing to do with this situation

- I crack the Principles joke because in those classes the most common phrase you hear is "all else being held constant" whenever a professor puts a graph up . You didn't do that. You don't discuss the effect it will have on labor supplied, tax revenues, job growth, out side investment, or a whole other list of things that could bias the results. All you did was post a demand curve and get into Miss Cleo mode.

-If you got different economic views, find. I in no way claim to be an expert but I'm questioning your methodology more that your theory. Plus economics is not physics, it is not a hard science. An analyst only works if the underlying assumptions hold. You didn't even bother to state those.

And since your article is the third link when you google Card and Kreuger, and is from a known right winger (Kremit Frog tea sip) lemme break you off with a better link with a more complete look and the picture

http://www.swcollege.com/bef/policy_debates/increase_minimum.html

But since you say I always like to argue everything. I'm chill and let you cook pa.

 

[Peep Game]

$15 in Cali is probably $7 in Texas

 

[HEATHEN]

$15 in Cali is probably $7 in Texas

Huh?

Wouldn't it be the other way around?

7 Cali bucks would be 15 in Texas since the cost of living is far less in Texas.

Or am I tripping with my #BroLogic right now?

 

[RustyShackleford]

^^^ I think what he is saying that the purchasing power you get from $15 in Cali is the same as what $7 would give you in Texas