• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Top $10 Minimum Wage

Hopefully those already making 10 dollars an hour are not expecting a pay raise.



David Frias works two minimum-wage jobs to squeak by in one of the most expensive cities in America. Come New Year's Day, he'll have a few more coins in his pocket as San Francisco makes history by becoming the first city in the nation to scale a $10 minimum wage. The city's hourly wage for its lowest-paid workers will hit $10.24, more than $2 above the California minimum wage and nearly $3 more than the working wage set by the federal government.
It won't put much more in Frias' wallet. But it gives him a sense of moving on up.

"It's a psychological boost," said Frias, who is a 34-year-old usher at a movie theater and a security guard for a crowd control firm. "It means that I'll have more money in my wallet to pay my bills and money to spend in the city to help the economy."
San Franciscans passed a proposition in 2003 that requires the city to increase the minimum wage each year, using a formula tied to inflation and the cost of living. It's just another way the progressive people of the City by the Bay have shown their support for the working-class in a locale where labor unions remain strong and housing costs are sky high.
Karl Kramer of the San Francisco Living Wage Coalition said a decent wage for a single adult without children in the city would be $15, and that doubles when you have at least one child or more. But like other advocates of better wages, he's still pleased that San Francisco will be the first in the nation to top $10.


I am a little confused.

The first paragraph says it won't put much more in his wallet but the second says he will have more money to pay his bills and spend in town.

Which is it?

What was the minimum raised from?
 
Minimum wage COULD be higher, but in general a minimum wage shouldn't be to high, the Conservatives do have a point in this, minimum wage jobs are for first time workers, teenagers and such, and if it goes to high, it COULD be damaging to some extent. I'm not an economist, so I wouldn't know where the line is, but it should be raised along with living wage, BUT not high enough to live off of necessarily, but it should rise a little bit, as living expenses go up.
 
Minimum wage COULD be higher, but in general a minimum wage shouldn't be to high, the Conservatives do have a point in this, minimum wage jobs are for first time workers, teenagers and such, and if it goes to high, it COULD be damaging to some extent. I'm not an economist, so I wouldn't know where the line is, but it should be raised along with living wage, BUT not high enough to live off of necessarily, but it should rise a little bit, as living expenses go up.

What is a living wage?

Are you talking about aliving wage for a married man with 3 kids and a mortgage or a divorced man with 3 kids, alimony and 2 mortages?

If the employeer has to pay an employee everything that employee will need to survive with all his bills included, that employeer will only hire teenagers that live with thier parents. How will any other people very get jobs?
 
View attachment 67119839

According to the Small Business Administration they are fairly significant, and worse for those who cannot utilize economies of scale as well as larger businesses can.

it's worth noting that this is from 2005, and therefore does not count the regulatory bonanza that has been going on the past few years. nobody knows yet what Obamacare is going to eventually end up costing them.

Okay, what I meant to ask was what specific regulations should be done away with? Not the exact costs (and I should have been more clear). The paper you posted is pretty dense, and 95 pages. I did browse it, but it was not specific enough for my needs, so could you give me some specifics?

I am saying this because I feel that there is a lot of talk about how businesses are over regulated. And I am sure that there are some regulations that are unnecessarily burdensome on some businesses. However I also think that some regulations are necessary. Thus, the statement that "there needs to be less regulations" means as little to me as the statement that "there needs to be more regulations." Without specifics, both are just talking points.
 
how will they, given that they are A) likely to be the least educated, B) likely to be the least credit worthy, C) likely to be the least educatable and D) now unable to make up for these things by building work experience?

but at least someone is admitting that this means kicking poor people to the curb.

I just don't follow the logic. Lets say there are 100 janitor jobs at some building in SF, and lets pretend they make minimum wage. The minimum wage raises to $10. Would people lose their jobs at this point?

As people leave their jobs as janitors, are you saying the people who would replace them would come from a higher skill/education set? Why? <--- this is the main thing I don't understand. Why would someone with a higher skill set become a janitor? Why not fill a job that people from their skill level historically fills?

And if so, aren't these people unemployed already? Does it matter who gets the job, a higher skilled worker or a lower skilled worker, as long as the job is there for someone to have?
 
Okay, what I meant to ask was what specific regulations should be done away with? Not the exact costs (and I should have been more clear). The paper you posted is pretty dense, and 95 pages. I did browse it, but it was not specific enough for my needs, so could you give me some specifics?

This isn't a business expense per se but it is businesses that will have to pay for it.

In the Clean Water Act it was decided that rain water needed regulated and it instructed cities that they must devise a plan to regulate rain water. Now we live in a small city without a city engineer and had to hire one specifically for this. It was sent in and was rejected for 4 things. O.K., re-do and sent back in where it was rejected for 36 things.

All completely asinine. The town has said screw it, we aren't going to do it. Other larger cities have done the same thing. I can certainly undertand a business deciding they would rather not expand than deal with new regulations.
 
This isn't a business expense per se but it is businesses that will have to pay for it.

In the Clean Water Act it was decided that rain water needed regulated and it instructed cities that they must devise a plan to regulate rain water. Now we live in a small city without a city engineer and had to hire one specifically for this. It was sent in and was rejected for 4 things. O.K., re-do and sent back in where it was rejected for 36 things.

All completely asinine. The town has said screw it, we aren't going to do it. Other larger cities have done the same thing. I can certainly undertand a business deciding they would rather not expand than deal with new regulations.

I sometimes work with these regulations...nightmarish.
 
Decisions like this are why items on the dollar menu at McDonalds in San Francisco cost $1.50.
 
Decisions like this are why items on the dollar menu at McDonalds in San Francisco cost $1.50.

$1.50 for a burger that someone else prepped for you - sounds cheap to me :D

Couldn't pay me a $1.50 to cook for anyone outside the family to save one's soul.
 
What is a living wage?

Are you talking about aliving wage for a married man with 3 kids and a mortgage or a divorced man with 3 kids, alimony and 2 mortages?

If the employeer has to pay an employee everything that employee will need to survive with all his bills included, that employeer will only hire teenagers that live with thier parents. How will any other people very get jobs?

No, I think you misunderstand what I meant. A minimum wage is not supposed to be equal to a living wage (for one person) BUT as living expenses go up or as the living wage goes up, the minimum wage should follow, but only at a far distance and more slowly.
 
There is always going to be need for getting rid of ineffective or simply stupid regulations, BUT i would bet that the vast majority of regulations are there for a good reason, one way or the other.
 
To me, I would say serving fast food is a much more difficult job than some standard desk job. You're always on your feet, doing multiple tasks at once, just because there is an endless supply of labor doesn't diminish the job. I think its more demanding than say balloon-payment-mortgage loan officer or mortgage-backed-security investor. Just because one job requires "supposed" skills and one has no prerequisites does not diminish the work. And it's not just only teenagers working minimum wage jobs, older people do work them too, although if only teenagers did work them we wouldn't need to raise the minimum wage but I don't think that's how it is.
 
To me, I would say serving fast food is a much more difficult job than some standard desk job. You're always on your feet, doing multiple tasks at once, just because there is an endless supply of labor doesn't diminish the job. I think its more demanding than say balloon-payment-mortgage loan officer or mortgage-backed-security investor. Just because one job requires "supposed" skills and one has no prerequisites does not diminish the work. And it's not just only teenagers working minimum wage jobs, older people do work them too, although if only teenagers did work them we wouldn't need to raise the minimum wage but I don't think that's how it is.

I'm sure it's far harder than being an appraiser also. Not really why one gets paid far more than the other.
 
Well, if we all got payed for how hard our job is overall, wouldn't that be nice lol, but thats not how it works, and it shouldn't work that way, I may be progressive mostly, but i still support a free market, a regulated, free market that is. If a business wants to pay their CEO a huge salary, whos to say "no you can't do that"? its a private business, its their decision, their money that they made.
 
Ya, true it is supply and demand and that's why Alex Rodriguez and Albert Pujols get $250 million because there is only one of them. Their work is not too difficult, play a game and practice, but it is limited by supply. But that's why I support at least a minimum floor, to right the situation a bit.
 
Well, if we all got payed for how hard our job is overall, wouldn't that be nice lol, but thats not how it works, and it shouldn't work that way, I may be progressive mostly, but i still support a free market, a regulated, free market that is. If a business wants to pay their CEO a huge salary, whos to say "no you can't do that"? its a private business, its their decision, their money that they made.

For god sakes no...I wouldn't make any money.

Just kidding.
 
Regulation For Dummies

...To answer the most basic question—has regulation increased?—we'll focus on what the government defines as "economically significant" regulations. Those are rules that impose more than $100 million in annual costs on the economy, though there are hundreds if not thousands of new rules every year that fall well short of that.

According to an analysis of the Federal Register by George Mason University's Mercatus Center, the Cabinet departments and agencies finalized 84 such regulations annually on average in President Obama's first two years. The annual average under President Bush was 62 and under President Clinton 56...

A useful proxy for the overall level of regulatory activity is the government document known as the Unified Agenda, which details all proposed or final rules and is compiled twice a year by the federal Regulatory Information Service Center. The nearby chart shows the trend of major rules under contemplation since 1995, including the most recent from this spring...

ED-AO656_1regs_D_20111213180604.jpg


The current number of major new rules is 149, which is an historic high. Regulation started to grow in the aftermath of 9/11, and even more with the Pelosi Congress in 2007. Yet both the rule-making rate and number are surging to even higher levels under Mr. Obama.

Not every rule in the Unified Agenda will ultimately go on the books, while others will appear in multiple seasons. On the other hand, the agenda is a lagging indicator. It often skips over "interim final rules" that bypass the ordinary process of notice and comment, like many of those for ObamaCare. The independent agencies also do much of their rule-making through "guidance" that is technically exempt from Unified Agenda reporting...

One problem with all such estimates is that they are based on self-reporting by government. Some agencies like the EPA have a habit of exaggerating benefits and hiding costs, but more importantly its analysis is done before the rules take effect in the real world. Often the true cost of regulation isn't merely compliance but slower growth that diminishes consumer welfare by allocating capital and labor to less valuable or productive uses.

The evidence is overwhelming that the Obama regulatory surge is one reason the current economic recovery has been so lackluster by historical standards. Rather than nurture an economy trying to rebuild confidence after a financial heart attack, the Administration pushed through its now-famous blitz of liberal policies on health care, financial services, energy, housing, education and student loans, telecom, labor relations, transportation and probably some other industries we've forgotten. Anyone who thinks this has only minimal impact on business has never been in business.
 
good thing it cuts off right at 1995. ;)
 

The second paragraph of the article made sense once you put the situation into context.

Obama has approved 4.7 percent fewer rules than Bush had at the same point in his presidency, but they cost businesses more, according to a Bloomberg News analysis. Obama's regulations are expected to cost businesses between $100 million and $4.1 billion more than Bush's, Bloomberg finds. Still, neither president's rules have cost as much as the annual high the costs of the elder Bush's regulations hit in 1992.

I assume Bush's (jr) regulations were around security and had to do more with 9/11.
 
Absolutely. Nothing like being disingenuous in looking only at a raw number that bolsters your own argument....Obama may have passed slightly fewer regulation, however they attack American business instead of the country's enemies.


j-mac
 
The second paragraph of the article made sense once you put the situation into context.



I assume Bush's (jr) regulations were around security and had to do more with 9/11.

still, in a historical perspective, Obama has not put in place regulations that cost business's more money when compared to past Presidents.

-------Still, neither president's rules have cost as much as the annual high the costs of the elder Bush's regulations hit in 1992.-----------
 
also, can anyone point out specific regulations, because its one thing to argue from the stand point of numbers and dollars, but its another if we actually look at some specific regulations, as maybe some are worth defending even if they cost a business more money. maybe.
 
also, can anyone point out specific regulations, because its one thing to argue from the stand point of numbers and dollars, but its another if we actually look at some specific regulations, as maybe some are worth defending even if they cost a business more money. maybe.

I'm not sure how many people want to open that can of worms.
 
Back
Top Bottom