• 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

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
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 think this is good. Helps to prevent and reduce a poor class. Businesses can deal with less profits/higher prices, I think a high minimum wage is the way to go.
 
It's not really that big of a deal. The major cities in Canada average $9-10/hr. I'm surprised San Fran is the first. It should have happened a long time ago. Cost of living has increased a lot but living wages have not.
 
I think this is good. Helps to prevent and reduce a poor class. Businesses can deal with less profits/higher prices, I think a high minimum wage is the way to go.

good point. personally, i say we increase the minimum wage to $100,000 a year. that way we can all be rich!
 
good point. personally, i say we increase the minimum wage to $100,000 a year. that way we can all be rich!
Fine by me, as long as you phase it in gradually. Do you have a point you're trying to make or are you just trolling?
 
thaaaaat the logic behind a living wage is really stupid?

that you can't increase compensation indefinitely - or indeed very far at all - without increasing production?

that labor exists on a supply/demand curve?

that cost of labor is part of the cost of production?



gosh, prices have been going up in the city??? man, I wonder if that has anything to do with the inflated labor costs businesses are working under..... :)
 
thaaaaat the logic behind a living wage is really stupid?

that you can't increase compensation indefinitely - or indeed very far at all - without increasing production?

that labor exists on a supply/demand curve?

that cost of labor is part of the cost of production?



gosh, prices have been going up in the city??? man, I wonder if that has anything to do with the inflated labor costs businesses are working under..... :)
A reasonably well-set minimum wage is not stupid. Having no regulation at all is stupid.

You no what else exists in a free market and with a supply and demand curve?, monopolies, dumping, exclusive contracts... Just saying supply/demand is the answer does not always result in the best outcome. Monopolies exist on a supply and demand curve. And then they raise prices really high and pocket all the money, pay off all the suppliers through kickbacks, which is also part of the free market, and prevent any competition from entering the market. Supply and demand is not the answer to every situation.

gosh, prices have been going up in the city??? man, I wonder if that has anything to do with the inflated labor costs businesses are working under..... :)
No, its probably property prices that are driving up the costs in the city, I doubt inflation due to labor costs is the driver. Cities are always more expensive then less dense/less desirable areas. Cities, especially downtown areas, naturally have higher costs because of desirability and property prices, its not because of labor. And to have a minimum wage to keep up with this only makes sense.
 
Last edited:
A reasonably well-set minimum wage is not stupid.

well, it depends on your goals. the people who instituted the minimum wage, for example, had very clear intentions for it. however, the "let's mandate that workers earn more so they will be better off" plan is a fallacy.

Having no regulation at all is stupid.

if by "no regulation" you mean "no minimum wage", then it is not stupid, such a move would, in fact, be wise.

You no what else exists in a free market and with a supply and demand curve?, monopolies, dumping, exclusive contracts...

actually as far as i am aware, none of these exist on a supply/demand curve. I think you have the supply/demand curve confused with the free market, and I think you have a pretty false notion of how it operates. competition is death to monopolies, which historically have had to rely on government subsidy in one form or another in order to maintain.

Just saying supply/demand is the answer does not always result in the best outcome

that is correct - it generally results in the best possible outcome.

Monopolies exist on a supply and demand curve.

no, they do not. monopolies can exist in a market; but unless they are externally supported they tend to rapidly fall.

And then they raise prices really high and pocket all the money, pay off all the suppliers through kickbacks, which is also part of the free market, and prevent any competition from entering the market.

if they raise prices really high, then competition will eviscerate them. heck, even if they don't raise their prices at all, but stand still, competition will eviscerate them, just slower.

Supply and demand is not the answer to every situation.

supply/demand curves isn't an answer, it is a reality. when you artificially increase the relative cost of labor, demand for labor will go down. When you put in a price floor, then resources that cannot command a price above the floor (in this case, labor) go unsold (ie: become or remain unemployed).

No, its probably property prices that are driving up the costs in the city, I doubt inflation due to labor costs is the driver. Cities are always more expensive then less dense/less desirable areas. Cities, especially downtown areas, naturally have higher costs because of desirability and property prices, its not because of labor. And to have a minimum wage to keep up with this only makes sense.

no, it doesn't. but let's walk through the prototypical example: Henry Ford famously offered that he paid his workers higher wages so that they could afford to purchase his cars. This was a great advertising technique, but a poor economic one. Because the wages of his workers made up part of the price of the car, and so every time the wages were increased, so was the price of the vehicle.

When you artificially jack up the price of labor, business owners have generally three choices: A) raise prices B) make do with fewer employees, or C) close up shop and move elsewhere.

You are describing the effects of many business owners performing A, given California's unemployment rate it seems many have chosen B, and given the rate at which businesses and business owners are fleeing the state, it seems that many are also choosing C.

:) well done.
 
Last edited:
good point. personally, i say we increase the minimum wage to $100,000 a year. that way we can all be rich!

I say ridiculous exaggerations are retarded,
 
good point. personally, i say we increase the minimum wage to $100,000 a year. that way we can all be rich!

Why would you do that ? everyone knows you can pay rent in a hovel and eat dirt and have your electric and phone turned off in any major city living on minimum wage...why in the world would we want to improve on that...sheesh
 
Why is this touted as a good thing? Cost of living is going up, inflation is going up, and now the burden on the people who are actually making jobs and creating work is going up. Who is the real winner in this situation?
 
I say ridiculous exaggerations are retarded,

You think I should have shot for a minimum wage of $50K a year?

at what point do you accept that the laws of economics yes apply to people too?
 
Why would you do that ? everyone knows you can pay rent in a hovel and eat dirt and have your electric and phone turned off in any major city living on minimum wage...why in the world would we want to improve on that...sheesh

what would I do? I would stop feeding a price-hike-cycle, for one, and start looking for ways to lower the cost of production secondly. certainly I wouldn't be looking to screw over poor people by pricing them out of the labor market, as the city of SF seems bound and determined to do.
 
Why is this touted as a good thing? Cost of living is going up, inflation is going up, and now the burden on the people who are actually making jobs and creating work is going up. Who is the real winner in this situation?

politicians who can now claim to have "done something".
 
Keeping up with inflation does make sense. The problem is, the Feds insatiable desire to create inflation does not. Those at the lower pay scale can not keep even fighting the inflation caused by increased costs and the policies of the Fed.
 
And later when it fails, they can blame republicans for forcing them into this situation.

It's SF. You'd think there would be no Republicans to blame.
 
I would like to point out San Francisco has one of the highest Per Capita incomes in the country. I'm guessing the living costs are pretty high there. If that's what the citizens of San Fran want...why exactly are you up in arms.
 
What's the issue. If it doesn't work, Republicans will have some evidence to back up their claims. It makes sense to some degree to argue that the federal government shouldn't implement policies that haven't been tested, but not so much for city governments.
 
I would like to point out San Francisco has one of the highest Per Capita incomes in the country. I'm guessing the living costs are pretty high there. If that's what the citizens of San Fran want...why exactly are you up in arms.

Indeed. I have no stats but I'd guess that making $10 an hour in S.F. still puts you behind those making $7.50 an hour in other places.
 
The minimum wage shouldn't based on what it takes to make a living or support a family of four. A lot of minmum wage jobs are taken by young people in high school and college who want to make some spending money or people who want to support a very limited lifestyle until they can get another job or get credentialed for another career. Some people don't want to be tied down to responsibility and accept a very limited lifestyle because they just don't want to work very hard. Minimum wage is just a starting point. Many people who are ambitious move up to management and other higher positions to increase their wages if they want to make a living in industries with a lot of minimum wage workers. Supply, demand and hard work should still be the major factor in wages. I don't mind a little boost in minimum wages but let's not be ridiculous.
 
You think I should have shot for a minimum wage of $50K a year?

at what point do you accept that the laws of economics yes apply to people too?

Your understanding of the laws of economics is flawed, so that is a big part of your problem. Minimum wages serve a purpose.
 
I think this is good. Helps to prevent and reduce a poor class. Businesses can deal with less profits/higher prices, I think a high minimum wage is the way to go.

Actually, it's going to make things worse for the working poor, because now, businesses are going to raise qualification standards for entry level positions. Some of those working poor won't be able to meet those standards and instead of having a low paying job, won't have any job at all.
 
Your understanding of the laws of economics is flawed, so that is a big part of your problem. Minimum wages serve a purpose.

A minimum wage that is too high will serve the purpose of creating more unemployment.
 
Back
Top Bottom