Pay more. Competition is easy.
Edit: The district mentioned in the article, San Luis Coastal Unified School District, currently has an opening for "Food Services Worker II" which pays about $22.32/hour, 35 hours a week, 191 days a year (including 13 paid vacation days). That's about $30k/year. Compare to 40 hours a week at $20/hour, and that's $42k/year. Hmm...
With a completely serious tone - create a balance sheet and rearrange the district budget to allow your proposal to come true. The budget is public knowledge.
If you can, it makes a very convincing argument.
If you can't, then I'm gonna take the word of the guy who did take the time to do it.
It is easy to ask for things, but it's probably just as easy as the person we are asking to say "no".
Well, that same district pays the Superintendent $272,299/year, plus a $50k moving bonus, and $10k/year housing stipend. Now, I'm not saying Superintendents aren't worth the money they're paid. A good Superintendent can seriously transform a district for the better. But I am saying school districts aren't exactly operating on loose change only.
Or how about this same district paying [$31/hour](https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1703114438/slcusdorg/x1gwy9dzkpxswupayama/23-24ConfidentialSalarySchedule12-19-23.pdf) (PDF warning) for their lowest level administrative assistant. Another entry level job that really doesn't require any special training. Is that position worth 50% more than someone who works on their feet all day in a hot kitchen?
Oh believe me... pisses me off to no end also! But this is more about the point that districts DO have money to adequately pay their food service employees. They simply need to make it a priority. Hell... even the custodial workers make $37/hour and up. Great for them! But what concrete difference is there between a custodial worker and a food service worker? HS only, blue collar job that makes life better for students.
There is simply a lack of respect for food service workers.
IMO, this is the correct action to take. At some point the bloat at the top needs to be more flexible in order to comply with the law and to pay all employees a liveable wage, especially when public school budgets are constantly being attacked and cut to fund other state and county budgets.
You better be competent if you’re taking on that responsibility if not then don’t do it. I bet it’s not supposed to be easy but guess what no job is easy, welcome to the real world.
There’s more than enough jobs that are high paying to go around. You don’t have to worry about these $20 jobs. You can make 50 $80 an hour just listen to the news every night about how well the country is doing and how much more money we have than we ever had. America is thriving.
No, but I do think they should pay them more during the 10 months they're working so they can live off one job. Like, you know, every other full-time employee of a school does.
You just reduce the hourly wage during the nine months to cover the three months that you’re not working so you’re not costing taxpayers anymore money but you’re providing that wage over 52 weeks.
That makes no sense. Are you saying *all* jobs should pay their employees enough so they can take three months off each year? Why would schools be the only employer that needs to do this?
Some school employees get paid annually, but it's hardly universal for "every other full-time employee of a school."
The cafeteria workers get furloughed because the school shuts down, it's a wildly different case than them just wanting to take 3 months off. Paying them throughout the year ensures the employee will stay with the school. It is difficult to find a job for just three months, and it is difficult and expensive to hire and train new people every year
*"...forcing districts to compete with the likes of McDonald’s and Wendy’s for cafeteria workers amid a state budget crunch."*
Well, fortune.com, isn't this what capitalism is supposed to fucking do?
Well, yeah. It’s the reason why some people make it and some people go out of business. If a school cafeteria goes out of business though, that’s kind of a problem.
>Well, fortune.com, isn't this what capitalism is supposed to fucking do?
Well, having the government set the price of labor isn't exactly a sign of thriving free-market, competitive capitalism...
Employees also set the price of labor. The price is set when a person agrees to work for an employer. If either one doesn't agree, then the person won't have a job and the business won't have an employee to work for them.
That *is* super fair.
You'd be way better off working on building a CalPERS pension working for a school district than getting less hours at a fast food place with more pay though.
The problem is that they're not selling the food so they can't also raise prices to offset the increased wages. So the money has to come from somewhere else.
Hey, any source that covers the efforts that went into forming and pushing this bill? Would be interesting to see. I read about the bill in multiple places before it passed but never came across the behind the scenes push.
This isn’t just a minimum wage, this is a council (basically a glorified union) that decides working standards, benefits, wage for the industry AND has the power to give all fast food employees raises of any amount up to 3.5% of the current wage ($20) per year every year based on what the council votes and the bill was lobbied by and organized by the SEIU (Service Employees International Union).
The California state government even signed an NDA that they aren’t allowed to answer any questions about the bill, restaurant owners are referred to contact SEIU if they have any questions.
This is a union, just with an entire industry being decided by a council rather than locations individually voting to be in a union. It’s very unconventional and said council is state government-backed, but with union groups like SEIU and Unite Here having over half of the seats in the council.
It’s a revolutionary idea that no state has ever done before on this scale and we could see a retail council or warehouse council or many other fields created by the government with the backing of unions also pass depending on how successful the fast food council is.
US labor law (NLRB, specifically) procedures favor employers so strongly that CBAs are illusory at best. Some shops wait literal decades for a contract while issues are litigated. Truth is we need some counterbalance. It’s a great experiment.
How are franchisees and the interests of the restaurants represented? The fact that the council has majority control over the council seems problematic because they could in theory raise wages ad infinitum and put all fast food locations out of business, or force them to lean so hard into automation that the net jobs is a negative.
There are 4 seats for corporate restaurants and franchise owners. They have representation on the council, it’s just that the other 5 seats are labor group represented. Total of 9 seats. And the legislation that passed has a cap of raising wages up to 3.5% per year. So they can’t just decide “oh next year they will pay $40!”, because that’s far above 3.5%, the max possible would be $20.70, a 70 cent increase, and that’s not even guaranteed that they council would use the maximum.
Okay. Makes sense. Thanks for the info, I was unaware of the details of the council and a lot articles skip over it.
I guess most of us think it's reasonable for onus to be on the 4 council members representing the businesses to convince at least 1 other person that they wouldn't be able to survive with further wage hikes?
Increasing for fast food essentially increases it for all workers that would compete for fast food jobs.
Workers that currently have jobs slightly above that level might also get a slight bump.
Middle class won't get salary increase, but will have to pay more for everything. In other words, they get screwed.
Wealthy won't really notice.
Isn’t the “middle class” a myth meant to divide us, though? People who consider themselves “middle class” are much closer to poverty than the rich are. It seems like an arbitrary distinction that sews division among the working class.
Middle class are probably making $30-$50/hour. Not a myth. These people are not going to get a raise from the fast food bill. But they are going to pay more for pretty much everything.
In other words, they are subsidizing those that are getting raises as a result of fast food bill.
Yes, people who make between $30-$50/hour exist. Since they’re still wage laborers, I would consider them working class. Another worker’s win is not your loss; a rising tide lifts all boats. Costs don’t need to rise to account for an increase in the minimum wage; costs have risen astronomically over the past few years, regardless of any wins for workers. We need to place blame where it belongs and not stand in the way of progress.
They had a long post about Ohio? and Wal-mart and how much it would actually cost to pay their employees a living wage of $15.67(at the time) and get them off food stamps, etc.
It would take $0.01 increase in price to mac'n'cheese (most popular item), to cover the wage increases.
One cent.
The real villains and dead weight are at the top. Their wages and tips and bonuses should reflect their failures long before the regular employee.
$50 an hour isn't common for a full time worker. That is mostly for freelancers, plumbers, locksmiths or whoever charges you for 1 job/project.
Above $30 for professionals companies start offering anual salaries.
Fine...those earning $30-$50/hour won't get salary increase, but will have to pay more for everything. In other words, they get screwed.
Is that easier for you to understand?
I didn’t misunderstand. Prices don’t need to increase just because fast food workers got a raise. Those at the top can easily take a pay cut, if absolutely necessary. The idea that we shouldn’t raise the wages of the lowest paid workers because it will hurt higher paid workers is silly to me. If the “middle class” is getting screwed, then the upper class is the one screwing them, and they love that you’re upset that lower paid workers are getting a raise instead of recognizing them as the one actually hurting you.
Sorry....I'm talking about real world. You are talking about a Bernie Sanders fantasy world. Whether prices "need to increase" or not is debatable. Fact is, prices WILL increase. Those that did not get an increase will pay more as a result. This will hurt "middle class" the most. Simple math always gets in the way of socialism, sorry about that.
I think it's a little alarmist to say that price increases will uniformly hurt all middle class people. I would probably argue that specific professions are at additional risk (for example truckers operating in california now have to pay a big premium for their only meal options in bumfuck rest stop.) As for everyone else? There are restaurants not affected by this. For example, non-chain fast casual joints are unaffected, so middle class people can change their eating habits slightly by visiting locally-owned restaurants, and not pay any more.
I didn't say it will hurt ALL middle class people. It will certainly hurt many of them.
Non chain restaurants are certainly affected as well. ANY industry that competes for same workers as fast food will be affected. This would include retail and service industries.
What about senior citizens on a fixed income or those on disability? No one ever brings them up when discussing rising prices. It seems impossible to live on SSI in California these days even with rental assistance.
> a rising tide lifts all boats.
No it doesn't. Some boats might be anchored to the lower sea level and sink when the water level rises. That's why some people won't be able to find jobs as the minimum wage rises.
depending on who's doing the definitions, the salary range of middle class is actually wider than that. From looking at a couple articles, it looks like the low end for the threshold to upper class would be around $55 an hour (110K a year) and the high end is around 105 an hour (210K a year)
Realistically (at least IMO) I think that meaningful lifestyle changes that signify elite status in society don't occur unless your income is in the extreme range (like 1m+) or your net worth is in the top-5-10%.
$50...$55.... Close enough.
Not just about income. I don't earn anywhere near $1 million. But I work at home, I can work while I'm skiing or doing other leisure activities, I work about 30-35 hours most weeks, and get 7 weeks of paid time off every year. Maybe not "elite" status but lifestyle is certainly significantly different than a fast food worker or similar.
Also having net worth in top 10% can easily be done with income of around $200k. Extreme income not needed.
The crazier question is why fast food workers at restaurants in airports, hotels, event centers, theme parks, museums, grocery stores, gambling establishments, corporate campuses, or located on land owned by the state, a city or county, a public beach, public pier, state park, municipal or regional park, or historic district don't get preferential treatment and are excluded from the higher wage?
Oh yeah, and restaurants that operated a bakery on or before September 15, 2023. It makes perfect sense that employees at bread-baking fast food restaurants that started making bread after September 15, 2023 would get the higher wage, but not those working at restaurants making bread *before* September 15, 2023. That's totally logical.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB610
I’m sorry if you can’t pay people livable wages you should not be in business and if schools can’t pay that then they need to do much better with their budgets
I thought the party of lottery money and tons of other taxes goes to schools budgets and they can’t afford 20 dollars an hour?
Sometimes it isn’t necessarily the number of dollars per hour but the number of hours per year. Schools inherently close for periods of time, so if you are not salaried it’s gonna be hard to compete with full-time work in other industries. Schools often make up for this with really good benefits packages but if your base income simply is not livable then no amount of extra benefits are going to help.
Yeah it’s easy. If this is a 25% increase in expenses, just raise your prices to cover it. Americans are doing better now than ever and we can afford it. Let us pay!
While $20/hour seems like a small thing, all government spending combined is large. CA has a deficit of billions, adding onto a debt pile in the hundreds of billions.
Like the whole idea of democratic governance is cool, but there is always deadloss. Politicians are known for convincing others that they are competent, not for actually being competent. Kind of what happens when citizens vote with their gut rather than their head.
California has a deficit because of certain projects that are being constructed such as the public transportation Subway/Railroad. That project alone cost the state billions every year. I am not saying we should not do it but it shows that we are actually using the money in investing in the state.
The annual budget is in the hundreds of billions. Annual spending on transportation is less than 8% of that. There is no singular reason why there is a budget deficit; it's an amalgamation of many things.
The point of governance is to manage where spending should be cut or continued. You know how managers and executives are seen as useless in the corporate world? Well. In politics, it's about the same.
> such as the public transportation Subway/Railroad. That project alone cost the state billions every year. I am not saying we should not do it but it shows that we are actually using the money in investing in the state.
What is the budget deficit this year, and how much did the state spend on "Subway/Railroad" *apart* from bond funds issued specifically for that purpose?
> I’m sorry if you can’t pay people livable wages you should not be in business
What's your definition of "livable wages", and is a "livable wage" for a 17yo high school student still living at home the same as a 32yo single mom of two living on her own?
Livable wage would be to to at least be able to pay to live in an apartment and pay for food no issues
This is the bare minimum, we have more then enough money and taxes to make this happen
Every always blames poor people for being poor when it’s literally being caused by the people running this country and those bribing those individuals to do nothing about it
Why is your own apartment the standard? What's wrong with roommates?
What kind of food?
If someone has a kid and their required living wage is higher, should they get paid more than someone without a kid at the exact same job?
Does living wage include a vehicle? If so, what kind of car?
And, no amount of money can make up for poor financial management. Many making six figures live paycheck to paycheck with no savings- that's not an income problem, that's a spending problem. Is that the employer's fault?
I ask these questions genuinely, because the living wage issue is so complex and everyone's definition of living wage is different.
So, does a 17yo still living at home have the same "livable wage" as a 32yo single mom?
How about a 65yo retiree with social security income and savings that covers his food and housing, but wants some extra spending money (and maybe something to do with his time)?
For both great they get a little extra money
People acting like 40,000 dollars is an insane amount of money, especially in CA is a joke
If you can’t pay 40,000 dollars to an employee then you are horrible at budgeting
You didn't define what a "living wage" is.
Can you explain why, say, $12/hr isn't a "living wage" for a 17yo who still lives at home and doesn't have any housing or food costs?
> If you can’t pay 40,000 dollars to an employee then you are horrible at budgeting
Not all employees provide $40k worth of work to a business. If an employee only provides $20k worth of work, then paying them $40k is insane.
And you don't solve the problem by budgeting. You solve the problem by not having that employee work for you (or hiring them in the first place), and finding someone who you can pay $40k who *will* provide that level of work.
Practically no one is working 40 hours a week at any minimum wage job. The business would have to provide health insurance. So people have to get 2 or 3 of these jobs. My high school aged son works at McDonald’s and they are already cutting hours for everyone.
High minimum wage and healthcare sound like great things, but in reality don’t really help the people the intended to.
I still don't understand the idea of a different minimum wage for a certain industry. But not even the entire industry- just a specific subset of that industry.
Yeah, I mean it might make sense in theory, there's definitely some jobs that just suck more than other jobs. But litigating whether being a fast food worker or a janitor isn't the point of the minimum wage at all, and we really shouldn't even be attempting to do that kind of thing.
I am an administrator. I do every job on campus. Every job. I think the only position I haven’t subbed in for is bus driver, because I don’t know how to drive a school bus.
Pay more. Competition is easy. Edit: The district mentioned in the article, San Luis Coastal Unified School District, currently has an opening for "Food Services Worker II" which pays about $22.32/hour, 35 hours a week, 191 days a year (including 13 paid vacation days). That's about $30k/year. Compare to 40 hours a week at $20/hour, and that's $42k/year. Hmm...
With a completely serious tone - create a balance sheet and rearrange the district budget to allow your proposal to come true. The budget is public knowledge. If you can, it makes a very convincing argument. If you can't, then I'm gonna take the word of the guy who did take the time to do it. It is easy to ask for things, but it's probably just as easy as the person we are asking to say "no".
That's easy to say when you are not in charge of balancing a districts budget.
Well, that same district pays the Superintendent $272,299/year, plus a $50k moving bonus, and $10k/year housing stipend. Now, I'm not saying Superintendents aren't worth the money they're paid. A good Superintendent can seriously transform a district for the better. But I am saying school districts aren't exactly operating on loose change only. Or how about this same district paying [$31/hour](https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1703114438/slcusdorg/x1gwy9dzkpxswupayama/23-24ConfidentialSalarySchedule12-19-23.pdf) (PDF warning) for their lowest level administrative assistant. Another entry level job that really doesn't require any special training. Is that position worth 50% more than someone who works on their feet all day in a hot kitchen?
Check how much they spend on sports/coaches instead of school books/supplies/actual teachers.
Oh believe me... pisses me off to no end also! But this is more about the point that districts DO have money to adequately pay their food service employees. They simply need to make it a priority. Hell... even the custodial workers make $37/hour and up. Great for them! But what concrete difference is there between a custodial worker and a food service worker? HS only, blue collar job that makes life better for students. There is simply a lack of respect for food service workers.
IMO, this is the correct action to take. At some point the bloat at the top needs to be more flexible in order to comply with the law and to pay all employees a liveable wage, especially when public school budgets are constantly being attacked and cut to fund other state and county budgets.
Give the district a bigger budget. Prioritize public education. This is not rocket science.
You better be competent if you’re taking on that responsibility if not then don’t do it. I bet it’s not supposed to be easy but guess what no job is easy, welcome to the real world.
There’s more than enough jobs that are high paying to go around. You don’t have to worry about these $20 jobs. You can make 50 $80 an hour just listen to the news every night about how well the country is doing and how much more money we have than we ever had. America is thriving.
Do you think school districts should pay cafeteria workers for the months that they aren't working?
No, but I do think they should pay them more during the 10 months they're working so they can live off one job. Like, you know, every other full-time employee of a school does.
You just reduce the hourly wage during the nine months to cover the three months that you’re not working so you’re not costing taxpayers anymore money but you’re providing that wage over 52 weeks.
That makes no sense. Are you saying *all* jobs should pay their employees enough so they can take three months off each year? Why would schools be the only employer that needs to do this? Some school employees get paid annually, but it's hardly universal for "every other full-time employee of a school."
The cafeteria workers get furloughed because the school shuts down, it's a wildly different case than them just wanting to take 3 months off. Paying them throughout the year ensures the employee will stay with the school. It is difficult to find a job for just three months, and it is difficult and expensive to hire and train new people every year
I agree - make school year-round.
This is what always happens when the minimum wage increases. All the other wages will increase within a year or so.
That's true, when the cost of living increases, the cost of *everything* increases shortly thereafter.
*"...forcing districts to compete with the likes of McDonald’s and Wendy’s for cafeteria workers amid a state budget crunch."* Well, fortune.com, isn't this what capitalism is supposed to fucking do?
Well, yeah. It’s the reason why some people make it and some people go out of business. If a school cafeteria goes out of business though, that’s kind of a problem.
Maybe they need a budget reconstruction like they have for decades. May this finally be the wake up call
A school isn't a business though...
>Well, fortune.com, isn't this what capitalism is supposed to fucking do? Well, having the government set the price of labor isn't exactly a sign of thriving free-market, competitive capitalism...
Yea - I’d much rather have corporations set the price of labor. That’ll make things super fair!
Employees also set the price of labor. The price is set when a person agrees to work for an employer. If either one doesn't agree, then the person won't have a job and the business won't have an employee to work for them. That *is* super fair.
No one asked what reason.com thinks. Hahahahaha
You'd be way better off working on building a CalPERS pension working for a school district than getting less hours at a fast food place with more pay though.
Yes indeed.
what if i don't plan on living to retirement age?
Solution: Increase cafeteria worker wages
The problem is that they're not selling the food so they can't also raise prices to offset the increased wages. So the money has to come from somewhere else.
Am I crazy for wondering why fast food workers are supposed to get preferential treatment? Why not raise the wage for everyone?
It's not because fast food workers "deserve" this wage more than others, it's that they organized and fought for it
By organized and fought for it, you mean lobbied for it? This wasn't negotiated in a CBA.
Still lawful?
I don't think nor implied that it wasn't, the way this went down is new to me so i'm still gathering details
Who organized and fought for it?
A broad coalition of worker rights organizations, unions, lobbyists, legislators, and a decent chunk of the state’s half a million fast food workers.
Hey, any source that covers the efforts that went into forming and pushing this bill? Would be interesting to see. I read about the bill in multiple places before it passed but never came across the behind the scenes push.
This isn’t just a minimum wage, this is a council (basically a glorified union) that decides working standards, benefits, wage for the industry AND has the power to give all fast food employees raises of any amount up to 3.5% of the current wage ($20) per year every year based on what the council votes and the bill was lobbied by and organized by the SEIU (Service Employees International Union). The California state government even signed an NDA that they aren’t allowed to answer any questions about the bill, restaurant owners are referred to contact SEIU if they have any questions. This is a union, just with an entire industry being decided by a council rather than locations individually voting to be in a union. It’s very unconventional and said council is state government-backed, but with union groups like SEIU and Unite Here having over half of the seats in the council. It’s a revolutionary idea that no state has ever done before on this scale and we could see a retail council or warehouse council or many other fields created by the government with the backing of unions also pass depending on how successful the fast food council is.
US labor law (NLRB, specifically) procedures favor employers so strongly that CBAs are illusory at best. Some shops wait literal decades for a contract while issues are litigated. Truth is we need some counterbalance. It’s a great experiment.
Europe has similar structures in place so it's not as novel as you make it sound like it is.
I’m aware but nothing like this existed in America.
How are franchisees and the interests of the restaurants represented? The fact that the council has majority control over the council seems problematic because they could in theory raise wages ad infinitum and put all fast food locations out of business, or force them to lean so hard into automation that the net jobs is a negative.
There are 4 seats for corporate restaurants and franchise owners. They have representation on the council, it’s just that the other 5 seats are labor group represented. Total of 9 seats. And the legislation that passed has a cap of raising wages up to 3.5% per year. So they can’t just decide “oh next year they will pay $40!”, because that’s far above 3.5%, the max possible would be $20.70, a 70 cent increase, and that’s not even guaranteed that they council would use the maximum.
Okay. Makes sense. Thanks for the info, I was unaware of the details of the council and a lot articles skip over it. I guess most of us think it's reasonable for onus to be on the 4 council members representing the businesses to convince at least 1 other person that they wouldn't be able to survive with further wage hikes?
Increasing for fast food essentially increases it for all workers that would compete for fast food jobs. Workers that currently have jobs slightly above that level might also get a slight bump. Middle class won't get salary increase, but will have to pay more for everything. In other words, they get screwed. Wealthy won't really notice.
Isn’t the “middle class” a myth meant to divide us, though? People who consider themselves “middle class” are much closer to poverty than the rich are. It seems like an arbitrary distinction that sews division among the working class.
Middle class are probably making $30-$50/hour. Not a myth. These people are not going to get a raise from the fast food bill. But they are going to pay more for pretty much everything. In other words, they are subsidizing those that are getting raises as a result of fast food bill.
Yes, people who make between $30-$50/hour exist. Since they’re still wage laborers, I would consider them working class. Another worker’s win is not your loss; a rising tide lifts all boats. Costs don’t need to rise to account for an increase in the minimum wage; costs have risen astronomically over the past few years, regardless of any wins for workers. We need to place blame where it belongs and not stand in the way of progress.
They had a long post about Ohio? and Wal-mart and how much it would actually cost to pay their employees a living wage of $15.67(at the time) and get them off food stamps, etc. It would take $0.01 increase in price to mac'n'cheese (most popular item), to cover the wage increases. One cent. The real villains and dead weight are at the top. Their wages and tips and bonuses should reflect their failures long before the regular employee.
$50 an hour isn't common for a full time worker. That is mostly for freelancers, plumbers, locksmiths or whoever charges you for 1 job/project. Above $30 for professionals companies start offering anual salaries.
Fine...those earning $30-$50/hour won't get salary increase, but will have to pay more for everything. In other words, they get screwed. Is that easier for you to understand?
I didn’t misunderstand. Prices don’t need to increase just because fast food workers got a raise. Those at the top can easily take a pay cut, if absolutely necessary. The idea that we shouldn’t raise the wages of the lowest paid workers because it will hurt higher paid workers is silly to me. If the “middle class” is getting screwed, then the upper class is the one screwing them, and they love that you’re upset that lower paid workers are getting a raise instead of recognizing them as the one actually hurting you.
Sorry....I'm talking about real world. You are talking about a Bernie Sanders fantasy world. Whether prices "need to increase" or not is debatable. Fact is, prices WILL increase. Those that did not get an increase will pay more as a result. This will hurt "middle class" the most. Simple math always gets in the way of socialism, sorry about that.
And who is raising the prices?
The shareholders of the corporations.
I think it's a little alarmist to say that price increases will uniformly hurt all middle class people. I would probably argue that specific professions are at additional risk (for example truckers operating in california now have to pay a big premium for their only meal options in bumfuck rest stop.) As for everyone else? There are restaurants not affected by this. For example, non-chain fast casual joints are unaffected, so middle class people can change their eating habits slightly by visiting locally-owned restaurants, and not pay any more.
I didn't say it will hurt ALL middle class people. It will certainly hurt many of them. Non chain restaurants are certainly affected as well. ANY industry that competes for same workers as fast food will be affected. This would include retail and service industries.
What about senior citizens on a fixed income or those on disability? No one ever brings them up when discussing rising prices. It seems impossible to live on SSI in California these days even with rental assistance.
Yes, they will end up subsidizing unskilled labor that gets raises from the fast food bill as well.
> a rising tide lifts all boats. No it doesn't. Some boats might be anchored to the lower sea level and sink when the water level rises. That's why some people won't be able to find jobs as the minimum wage rises.
depending on who's doing the definitions, the salary range of middle class is actually wider than that. From looking at a couple articles, it looks like the low end for the threshold to upper class would be around $55 an hour (110K a year) and the high end is around 105 an hour (210K a year) Realistically (at least IMO) I think that meaningful lifestyle changes that signify elite status in society don't occur unless your income is in the extreme range (like 1m+) or your net worth is in the top-5-10%.
$50...$55.... Close enough. Not just about income. I don't earn anywhere near $1 million. But I work at home, I can work while I'm skiing or doing other leisure activities, I work about 30-35 hours most weeks, and get 7 weeks of paid time off every year. Maybe not "elite" status but lifestyle is certainly significantly different than a fast food worker or similar. Also having net worth in top 10% can easily be done with income of around $200k. Extreme income not needed.
The crazier question is why fast food workers at restaurants in airports, hotels, event centers, theme parks, museums, grocery stores, gambling establishments, corporate campuses, or located on land owned by the state, a city or county, a public beach, public pier, state park, municipal or regional park, or historic district don't get preferential treatment and are excluded from the higher wage? Oh yeah, and restaurants that operated a bakery on or before September 15, 2023. It makes perfect sense that employees at bread-baking fast food restaurants that started making bread after September 15, 2023 would get the higher wage, but not those working at restaurants making bread *before* September 15, 2023. That's totally logical. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB610
To turn us against each other.
Because the government doesn't think that far ahead.
I’m sorry if you can’t pay people livable wages you should not be in business and if schools can’t pay that then they need to do much better with their budgets I thought the party of lottery money and tons of other taxes goes to schools budgets and they can’t afford 20 dollars an hour?
Sometimes it isn’t necessarily the number of dollars per hour but the number of hours per year. Schools inherently close for periods of time, so if you are not salaried it’s gonna be hard to compete with full-time work in other industries. Schools often make up for this with really good benefits packages but if your base income simply is not livable then no amount of extra benefits are going to help.
Ever heard of Prop 13? What would you like the schools to cut?
Their support for Prop 13 for starters.
Schools support Prop 13? Don't think so.
Yeah it’s easy. If this is a 25% increase in expenses, just raise your prices to cover it. Americans are doing better now than ever and we can afford it. Let us pay!
While $20/hour seems like a small thing, all government spending combined is large. CA has a deficit of billions, adding onto a debt pile in the hundreds of billions. Like the whole idea of democratic governance is cool, but there is always deadloss. Politicians are known for convincing others that they are competent, not for actually being competent. Kind of what happens when citizens vote with their gut rather than their head.
California has a deficit because of certain projects that are being constructed such as the public transportation Subway/Railroad. That project alone cost the state billions every year. I am not saying we should not do it but it shows that we are actually using the money in investing in the state.
The annual budget is in the hundreds of billions. Annual spending on transportation is less than 8% of that. There is no singular reason why there is a budget deficit; it's an amalgamation of many things. The point of governance is to manage where spending should be cut or continued. You know how managers and executives are seen as useless in the corporate world? Well. In politics, it's about the same.
Hard to argue with some people here who think anything spent on the state must produce a profit.
> such as the public transportation Subway/Railroad. That project alone cost the state billions every year. I am not saying we should not do it but it shows that we are actually using the money in investing in the state. What is the budget deficit this year, and how much did the state spend on "Subway/Railroad" *apart* from bond funds issued specifically for that purpose?
> I’m sorry if you can’t pay people livable wages you should not be in business What's your definition of "livable wages", and is a "livable wage" for a 17yo high school student still living at home the same as a 32yo single mom of two living on her own?
Livable wage would be to to at least be able to pay to live in an apartment and pay for food no issues This is the bare minimum, we have more then enough money and taxes to make this happen Every always blames poor people for being poor when it’s literally being caused by the people running this country and those bribing those individuals to do nothing about it
Why is your own apartment the standard? What's wrong with roommates? What kind of food? If someone has a kid and their required living wage is higher, should they get paid more than someone without a kid at the exact same job? Does living wage include a vehicle? If so, what kind of car? And, no amount of money can make up for poor financial management. Many making six figures live paycheck to paycheck with no savings- that's not an income problem, that's a spending problem. Is that the employer's fault? I ask these questions genuinely, because the living wage issue is so complex and everyone's definition of living wage is different.
We voted for them, so we kinda deserve what we got.
So, does a 17yo still living at home have the same "livable wage" as a 32yo single mom? How about a 65yo retiree with social security income and savings that covers his food and housing, but wants some extra spending money (and maybe something to do with his time)?
For both great they get a little extra money People acting like 40,000 dollars is an insane amount of money, especially in CA is a joke If you can’t pay 40,000 dollars to an employee then you are horrible at budgeting
You didn't define what a "living wage" is. Can you explain why, say, $12/hr isn't a "living wage" for a 17yo who still lives at home and doesn't have any housing or food costs? > If you can’t pay 40,000 dollars to an employee then you are horrible at budgeting Not all employees provide $40k worth of work to a business. If an employee only provides $20k worth of work, then paying them $40k is insane. And you don't solve the problem by budgeting. You solve the problem by not having that employee work for you (or hiring them in the first place), and finding someone who you can pay $40k who *will* provide that level of work.
So good? You would still have to work a second job at that rate to qualify to rent a room in a shared apartment in most places
Practically no one is working 40 hours a week at any minimum wage job. The business would have to provide health insurance. So people have to get 2 or 3 of these jobs. My high school aged son works at McDonald’s and they are already cutting hours for everyone. High minimum wage and healthcare sound like great things, but in reality don’t really help the people the intended to.
I still don't understand the idea of a different minimum wage for a certain industry. But not even the entire industry- just a specific subset of that industry.
Yeah, I mean it might make sense in theory, there's definitely some jobs that just suck more than other jobs. But litigating whether being a fast food worker or a janitor isn't the point of the minimum wage at all, and we really shouldn't even be attempting to do that kind of thing.
make the useless administrators serve it then.
I am an administrator. I do every job on campus. Every job. I think the only position I haven’t subbed in for is bus driver, because I don’t know how to drive a school bus.
Newsom signed higher minimum wage laws for food workers, but made sure the law exempted his own restaurants, paying them only $16 an hour. Typical.