8 ms·

Is your usual breakfast spot a location with more than 60 locations? The minimum wage increase here only applied to chains with more than 60 locations. A lot of

Is your usual breakfast spot a location with more than 60 locations? The minimum wage increase here only applied to chains with more than 60 locations. A lot of what you're describing is nation-wide. Food is more expensive everywhere. Cost of living in California is up significantly. Rents for restaurants is significantly higher as well (at least anecdotally, my wife's family restaurant has to close because they doubled the rent after their lease was up, I have heard this is incredible common). This study by UC Berkeley attributed a 3.7% increase in food price because of the minimum wage changes. It's quite likely that food overall getting more expensive is responsible for a lot of what you're seeing. If we can't afford to pay people in California a wage where they can live here, then maybe the economy overall isn't sustainable? A $20 minimum wage is like $2800 take home per month and in many places that can barely cover rent.

mensetmanusman 1y ago
The property tax laws need to force people to maybe not sit in large empty houses.
- anonymousiam 1y ago
  Why, if you have the money, should you be forced to have roommates or tenants? What sort of freedom is that?
  - jaggederest 1y ago
    If you have the money the taxes should be no problem, surely?
    - kriops 1y ago
      Taxes are only ever a problem if you have money … or something equivalent.
    - alsetmusic 1y ago
      The problem is a California tax law that lets home owners pay the tax rate from when they bought the home despite the value increasing. It disincentives selling. Which leads to retirees sitting on family homes rather than relocating and releasing them back into the market.
  - mdavid626 1y ago
    True, but if the other half of the country can't affor any house, then surely we should find some solution.
  - lotsofpulp 1y ago
    If you have the money, paying proportionate land value tax to pay for society's upkeep and protection of your land is not a problem. If you don't have the money, then you are free to live on a smaller surface area.
    - sethammons 1y ago
      My property tax has gone up over 6x in 7 years. How am I supposed to plan my retirement? Plan to leave my home of years, where I have built a life and have all my things? If you think that, you are a sick person and I have to imagine you are younger and only thinking "but I want that nice house, so f*k off old person, take some money and go die somewhere else."
      - phil21 1y ago
        Old people should not be prioritized over the young. A 600% increase in property taxes over 7 years is an extreme outlier. Zero of my friends or family have ever once experienced such a thing happening. I certainly am not a fan of how heavy my property taxes are in one of the heaviest taxed cities in the US - but I would absolutely vote down anything resembling something like Prop 13. It's an immoral bit of tax code that favors old people over the young and productive - like seemingly most of our current policy. I should not be paying a different rate than the young couple moving in next door to me simply because I got here first. The services need to be paid all the same regardless of my age. > How am I supposed to plan my retirement? Plan to leave my home of years, where I have built a life and have all my things? Yes, obviously. I have this giant asset called property I can sell and downsize to something reasonable in retirement. Or in the worst case - move. I could also use the equity in my home to pay for living expenses if I must. This was considered normal and expected just a couple generations ago. This whole "let the old eat their young" streak of society needs to die off sooner than later.
        sethammons 1y ago
        Letting some old person stay in their lifelong home is not the old eating the young. Kicking that old person out of their home literally is the young killing off the old.
anonymousiam 1y ago
[flagged]
- justinrubek 1y ago
  This comes across as if you want people to work for your convenience but without paying for it. You are not obligated to the output of other peoples' work. The subway isn't open that early? It wasn't cost effective to pay the people according to that store based on the amount of business they got.
  - hollerith 1y ago
    You are utterly dependent on complex supply chains and would find it extremely difficult to continue to survive if something ever happened to most or all of those chains. It is rich of you to support a law that interfered with one kind of supply chain and then to lecture someone who gave a detailed description of harms that probably are effects of the interference. Although it is true that a person is "not obligated [you meant entitled] to the output of other peoples' work," that does not mean that enough interference by ham-handed governmental policies won't make everyone significantly worse off -- because we all make extensive use of complex chains of economic transfer.
- greedo 1y ago
  It's been a long time since I worked in the SoCal fast food scene, but it's been decades since it was true that a majority of the workers were students.
Hilift 1y ago
A better example would be Los Angeles and the new $30 per hour minimum wage for hotel and airport workers. Conceptually it makes sense. The crux of the issue and some opposition is there are more people now who use those jobs for primary income for a family, where in the past it may have been perceived as jobs for supplemental income and no health benefits.
- benbayard 1y ago
  I'm glad those people are able to now support a family. At least we have that, if nothing else.
SideQuark 1y ago
Min wage forced on some places forces other companies to compete for workers, so your argument is missing important facts.
- benbayard 1y ago
  You are correct that I was unable to summarize an incredibly complex tangled web of economics, sociology and politics in a few hundred words on a forum. I don't think any of us can do this. Of course it's an oversimplification. Is the comment I'm replying to also not doing this? Are you also not doing the same thing? My only point is that this seems like an awful lot of confirmation bias. Something everyone suffers from.
  - SideQuark 1y ago
    Not all people suffer the same level of confirmation bias, especially across all topics. And, for most topics, broad consensus of experts is better and less biased than individuals.

mensetmanusman 1y ago

The property tax laws need to force people to maybe not sit in large empty houses.

anonymousiam 1y ago
Why, if you have the money, should you be forced to have roommates or tenants? What sort of freedom is that?
- jaggederest 1y ago
  If you have the money the taxes should be no problem, surely?
  - kriops 1y ago
    Taxes are only ever a problem if you have money … or something equivalent.
  - alsetmusic 1y ago
    The problem is a California tax law that lets home owners pay the tax rate from when they bought the home despite the value increasing. It disincentives selling. Which leads to retirees sitting on family homes rather than relocating and releasing them back into the market.
- mdavid626 1y ago
  True, but if the other half of the country can't affor any house, then surely we should find some solution.
- lotsofpulp 1y ago
  If you have the money, paying proportionate land value tax to pay for society's upkeep and protection of your land is not a problem. If you don't have the money, then you are free to live on a smaller surface area.
  - sethammons 1y ago
    My property tax has gone up over 6x in 7 years. How am I supposed to plan my retirement? Plan to leave my home of years, where I have built a life and have all my things? If you think that, you are a sick person and I have to imagine you are younger and only thinking "but I want that nice house, so f*k off old person, take some money and go die somewhere else."
    - phil21 1y ago
      Old people should not be prioritized over the young. A 600% increase in property taxes over 7 years is an extreme outlier. Zero of my friends or family have ever once experienced such a thing happening. I certainly am not a fan of how heavy my property taxes are in one of the heaviest taxed cities in the US - but I would absolutely vote down anything resembling something like Prop 13. It's an immoral bit of tax code that favors old people over the young and productive - like seemingly most of our current policy. I should not be paying a different rate than the young couple moving in next door to me simply because I got here first. The services need to be paid all the same regardless of my age. > How am I supposed to plan my retirement? Plan to leave my home of years, where I have built a life and have all my things? Yes, obviously. I have this giant asset called property I can sell and downsize to something reasonable in retirement. Or in the worst case - move. I could also use the equity in my home to pay for living expenses if I must. This was considered normal and expected just a couple generations ago. This whole "let the old eat their young" streak of society needs to die off sooner than later.
      - sethammons 1y ago
        Letting some old person stay in their lifelong home is not the old eating the young. Kicking that old person out of their home literally is the young killing off the old.

anonymousiam 1y ago

[flagged]

justinrubek 1y ago
This comes across as if you want people to work for your convenience but without paying for it. You are not obligated to the output of other peoples' work. The subway isn't open that early? It wasn't cost effective to pay the people according to that store based on the amount of business they got.
- hollerith 1y ago
  You are utterly dependent on complex supply chains and would find it extremely difficult to continue to survive if something ever happened to most or all of those chains. It is rich of you to support a law that interfered with one kind of supply chain and then to lecture someone who gave a detailed description of harms that probably are effects of the interference. Although it is true that a person is "not obligated [you meant entitled] to the output of other peoples' work," that does not mean that enough interference by ham-handed governmental policies won't make everyone significantly worse off -- because we all make extensive use of complex chains of economic transfer.
greedo 1y ago
It's been a long time since I worked in the SoCal fast food scene, but it's been decades since it was true that a majority of the workers were students.

Hilift 1y ago

A better example would be Los Angeles and the new $30 per hour minimum wage for hotel and airport workers. Conceptually it makes sense. The crux of the issue and some opposition is there are more people now who use those jobs for primary income for a family, where in the past it may have been perceived as jobs for supplemental income and no health benefits.

benbayard 1y ago
I'm glad those people are able to now support a family. At least we have that, if nothing else.

SideQuark 1y ago

Min wage forced on some places forces other companies to compete for workers, so your argument is missing important facts.

benbayard 1y ago
You are correct that I was unable to summarize an incredibly complex tangled web of economics, sociology and politics in a few hundred words on a forum. I don't think any of us can do this. Of course it's an oversimplification. Is the comment I'm replying to also not doing this? Are you also not doing the same thing? My only point is that this seems like an awful lot of confirmation bias. Something everyone suffers from.
- SideQuark 1y ago
  Not all people suffer the same level of confirmation bias, especially across all topics. And, for most topics, broad consensus of experts is better and less biased than individuals.