“The Yolo County Probation Department has added photos and descriptions of its “Most Wanted” fugitive probationers to its Web site.”
And as if that did not sound strange enough, go to the actual page, you have people wanted for crimes such as “Unauthorized Possession of a Controlled Substance.” You have a few wanted for spousal abuse, several substance abuses, and burglary. Not to make light of these crimes.
http://www.yolocounty.org/org/probation/Most-Wanted/Default.htm
CBS 13 Covers the Target Issue
The other night, CBS 13 in Sacramento had a feature on Target. Here’s a link to the video of that news story:
http://www.cbs13.com/video/?id=14450@kovr.dayport.com
A few thoughts on Rifkin’s Living Wage Column
Rifkin argues against a minimum wage citing research that suggests that minimum wage does more harm than good. He writes:
Far more destructive would be a “living wage” in Davis, where the floor, according to Lamar, would be $10 per hour.
Let us put this into perspective. In January california’s minimum wage will increase to $7.50 per hour and in January of 2008 it goes up to $8.00 per hour. Davis being much more expensive to live than a lot of other places it is not outrageous to suggest that it might have a higher minimum wage than the state level–especially for large employers who are more likely to be able to absorb the cost.
Rifkin writes: “I know a nursery owner who hired part-time workers to water her plants. When the California minimum wage was last increased, she was forced to buy an automated irrigation system to do that task instead. Now, no one has a job watering those plants, thanks to our high minimum wage.”
This is a good point, but it also illuminates the reason why the new living wage should not be universal. Target provides us with a good example.
In 2008 or beyond when Target in Davis opens they project somewhere around 250 jobs at $8 per hour. How many fewer employees are they going to hire if they have to pay $10 per hour? They may hire fewer, but that’s by no means a certainty. But even if they hire fewer, it would be nice if the people who they did hire could actually reside in the city of Davis and therefore redistribute most of their income into the city’s economy. Whereas if they had to live in the cheaper West Sacramento or Dixon, a lot of that money would escape into other municipalities. That would seem to be a win-win for Davis and Target and may actually result in more earnings for Target down the line.
If Councilman Heystek’s ambition is to help low-paid workers who are trying to support their families, he should forget his living wage ordinance and push for a more generous EITC.
Perhaps Rifkin forgets that Heystek has almost as little power to enact an EITC as City Councilmember as Rifkin does as a columnist. So if Heystek is to help low-income families, he has to do things that are actually within his power.
Unlike most welfare schemes, the EITC does not encourage idleness.
And neither does a living wage which obviously relies on the individual performing long hours of work.
I do not see the living wage proposal placed on large employers in Davis being a huge depresser of the job market. Rather I see this as an opportunity for the city to keep more of its employees residing in the city limits which will improve revenue not only for the city but also for its businesses.
It’s a good thing that Probation is asking for help in locating people that they’ve lost track of. In the case of substance abuse, it could be a matter of safety for the abuser. I’m glad that they have not lost track of people with much more violent offenses, i.e. rapists and murderers.
It’s a good thing that Probation is asking for help in locating people that they’ve lost track of. In the case of substance abuse, it could be a matter of safety for the abuser. I’m glad that they have not lost track of people with much more violent offenses, i.e. rapists and murderers.
It’s a good thing that Probation is asking for help in locating people that they’ve lost track of. In the case of substance abuse, it could be a matter of safety for the abuser. I’m glad that they have not lost track of people with much more violent offenses, i.e. rapists and murderers.
It’s a good thing that Probation is asking for help in locating people that they’ve lost track of. In the case of substance abuse, it could be a matter of safety for the abuser. I’m glad that they have not lost track of people with much more violent offenses, i.e. rapists and murderers.
It’s a good thing that Probation is asking for help in locating people that they’ve lost track of. In the case of substance abuse, it could be a matter of safety for the abuser. I’m glad that they have not lost track of people with much more violent offenses, i.e. rapists and murderers.
It’s a good thing that Probation is asking for help in locating people that they’ve lost track of. In the case of substance abuse, it could be a matter of safety for the abuser. I’m glad that they have not lost track of people with much more violent offenses, i.e. rapists and murderers.
It’s a good thing that Probation is asking for help in locating people that they’ve lost track of. In the case of substance abuse, it could be a matter of safety for the abuser. I’m glad that they have not lost track of people with much more violent offenses, i.e. rapists and murderers.
It’s a good thing that Probation is asking for help in locating people that they’ve lost track of. In the case of substance abuse, it could be a matter of safety for the abuser. I’m glad that they have not lost track of people with much more violent offenses, i.e. rapists and murderers.
It’s a good thing that Probation is asking for help in locating people that they’ve lost track of. In the case of substance abuse, it could be a matter of safety for the abuser. I’m glad that they have not lost track of people with much more violent offenses, i.e. rapists and murderers.
It’s a good thing that Probation is asking for help in locating people that they’ve lost track of. In the case of substance abuse, it could be a matter of safety for the abuser. I’m glad that they have not lost track of people with much more violent offenses, i.e. rapists and murderers.
It’s a good thing that Probation is asking for help in locating people that they’ve lost track of. In the case of substance abuse, it could be a matter of safety for the abuser. I’m glad that they have not lost track of people with much more violent offenses, i.e. rapists and murderers.
It’s a good thing that Probation is asking for help in locating people that they’ve lost track of. In the case of substance abuse, it could be a matter of safety for the abuser. I’m glad that they have not lost track of people with much more violent offenses, i.e. rapists and murderers.
Oops. Something went wrong here.
Oops. Something went wrong here.
Oops. Something went wrong here.
Oops. Something went wrong here.
“Perhaps Rifkin forgets that Heystek has almost as little power to enact an EITC as City Councilmember as Rifkin does as a columnist.”
No one needs to “enact” an EITC. We have one. It should be expanded and made more generous.
As far as my forgetfulness goes, I am aware that the Davis City Council does not control federal tax policy. It equally does not control federal war policy or abortion policy or other policies about which it has weighed in. However, insofar as improving the EITC would benefit residents of Davis (and other communities around the country), it seems to me wise that the council should discuss the issue, and if they agree, they ought to pass a resolution in support of a bigger and better EITC. (I should note that every time the Congress has written a new tax law since 1986, the EITC has been expanded and improved.)
“So if Heystek is to help low-income families, he has to do things that are actually within his power.”
Fair enough. But because the living wage (and the minimum wage for that matter) are counter to the interests of poor families, Heystek and his colleagues on the council should be mindful of that and oppose them.
Lamar told me, in response to my column, that he would like city staff to consider what I wrote about the living wage and the EITC.
I am quoted as writing:“Unlike most welfare schemes, the EITC does not encourage idleness.
Doug responds: “And neither does a living wage which obviously relies on the individual performing long hours of work.”
The living wage is not a welfare scheme. It does not involve the transfer of public resources.
Welfare schemes are programs where the government gives cash or non-cash benefits to needy or elderly people (or sadly in many instances, to big companies and rich farmers).
The EITC, though, is a welfare scheme. And the way it is structured, it encourages and rewards work.
By contrast, many welfare programs for the poor penalize work: i.e., people can lose their benefits (food stamps, housing aid, medicaid, AFDC, etc.) as soon as they take a paying job. As such, getting a job can result in a lower standard of living. And that is a perverse incentive not found in the EITC.
“I do not see the living wage proposal placed on large employers in Davis being a huge depresser of the job market.”
In the short run, it probably wouldn’t be a “huge depresser.” Longer term, it would depress entry-level employment insofar as companies could substitute away from low-skilled labor. Most workers at Target are not entry level or low-skilled. But some are. And those people would be the victims of this proposal.
So the big losers in that trade-off are the people who can never get a start in the workforce; and as the Neumark study shows, that has severe long-term negative consequences for the poor.
“Rather I see this as an opportunity for the city to keep more of its employees residing in the city limits which will improve revenue not only for the city but also for its businesses.”
That is not an obvious conclusion, and I know of no evidence to suggest it would happen. It seems to me logical that if Target pays less money per hour, then it would make less sense for Woodlanders and Dixonites and West Sacramentans to travel all the way to Davis for a job.
By contrast, if the Davis Target were forced to pay a higher wage, someone now, for example, who lives and works in Woodland, and has the skill-set that it takes to make more money, would be more likely to apply for a job at the Davis Target and travel here to work.
In the end, that’s an empirical question. We’ll just have to see where the workers at Target live.
The bottom line is this: if someone has few workskills and little experience, he cannot generate a lot of income per hour for his employer. (If you give him a job and a chance to learn some skills, he will be able to improve his lot.) So if you force his employer to pay more than he is worth to the employer, then he won’t get a chance to ever start work and improve his prospects. It is for that reason that you want to eliminate unnecessary rigidities from labor markets.
By imposiing a “living wage” on Target, you will increase the median wage earned by its employees. You won’t do that by lifting everyone up in the organization. Rather, you will do that by cutting off those at the bottom end who, in many cases, can least afford to be cut off.
“Perhaps Rifkin forgets that Heystek has almost as little power to enact an EITC as City Councilmember as Rifkin does as a columnist.”
No one needs to “enact” an EITC. We have one. It should be expanded and made more generous.
As far as my forgetfulness goes, I am aware that the Davis City Council does not control federal tax policy. It equally does not control federal war policy or abortion policy or other policies about which it has weighed in. However, insofar as improving the EITC would benefit residents of Davis (and other communities around the country), it seems to me wise that the council should discuss the issue, and if they agree, they ought to pass a resolution in support of a bigger and better EITC. (I should note that every time the Congress has written a new tax law since 1986, the EITC has been expanded and improved.)
“So if Heystek is to help low-income families, he has to do things that are actually within his power.”
Fair enough. But because the living wage (and the minimum wage for that matter) are counter to the interests of poor families, Heystek and his colleagues on the council should be mindful of that and oppose them.
Lamar told me, in response to my column, that he would like city staff to consider what I wrote about the living wage and the EITC.
I am quoted as writing:“Unlike most welfare schemes, the EITC does not encourage idleness.
Doug responds: “And neither does a living wage which obviously relies on the individual performing long hours of work.”
The living wage is not a welfare scheme. It does not involve the transfer of public resources.
Welfare schemes are programs where the government gives cash or non-cash benefits to needy or elderly people (or sadly in many instances, to big companies and rich farmers).
The EITC, though, is a welfare scheme. And the way it is structured, it encourages and rewards work.
By contrast, many welfare programs for the poor penalize work: i.e., people can lose their benefits (food stamps, housing aid, medicaid, AFDC, etc.) as soon as they take a paying job. As such, getting a job can result in a lower standard of living. And that is a perverse incentive not found in the EITC.
“I do not see the living wage proposal placed on large employers in Davis being a huge depresser of the job market.”
In the short run, it probably wouldn’t be a “huge depresser.” Longer term, it would depress entry-level employment insofar as companies could substitute away from low-skilled labor. Most workers at Target are not entry level or low-skilled. But some are. And those people would be the victims of this proposal.
So the big losers in that trade-off are the people who can never get a start in the workforce; and as the Neumark study shows, that has severe long-term negative consequences for the poor.
“Rather I see this as an opportunity for the city to keep more of its employees residing in the city limits which will improve revenue not only for the city but also for its businesses.”
That is not an obvious conclusion, and I know of no evidence to suggest it would happen. It seems to me logical that if Target pays less money per hour, then it would make less sense for Woodlanders and Dixonites and West Sacramentans to travel all the way to Davis for a job.
By contrast, if the Davis Target were forced to pay a higher wage, someone now, for example, who lives and works in Woodland, and has the skill-set that it takes to make more money, would be more likely to apply for a job at the Davis Target and travel here to work.
In the end, that’s an empirical question. We’ll just have to see where the workers at Target live.
The bottom line is this: if someone has few workskills and little experience, he cannot generate a lot of income per hour for his employer. (If you give him a job and a chance to learn some skills, he will be able to improve his lot.) So if you force his employer to pay more than he is worth to the employer, then he won’t get a chance to ever start work and improve his prospects. It is for that reason that you want to eliminate unnecessary rigidities from labor markets.
By imposiing a “living wage” on Target, you will increase the median wage earned by its employees. You won’t do that by lifting everyone up in the organization. Rather, you will do that by cutting off those at the bottom end who, in many cases, can least afford to be cut off.
“Perhaps Rifkin forgets that Heystek has almost as little power to enact an EITC as City Councilmember as Rifkin does as a columnist.”
No one needs to “enact” an EITC. We have one. It should be expanded and made more generous.
As far as my forgetfulness goes, I am aware that the Davis City Council does not control federal tax policy. It equally does not control federal war policy or abortion policy or other policies about which it has weighed in. However, insofar as improving the EITC would benefit residents of Davis (and other communities around the country), it seems to me wise that the council should discuss the issue, and if they agree, they ought to pass a resolution in support of a bigger and better EITC. (I should note that every time the Congress has written a new tax law since 1986, the EITC has been expanded and improved.)
“So if Heystek is to help low-income families, he has to do things that are actually within his power.”
Fair enough. But because the living wage (and the minimum wage for that matter) are counter to the interests of poor families, Heystek and his colleagues on the council should be mindful of that and oppose them.
Lamar told me, in response to my column, that he would like city staff to consider what I wrote about the living wage and the EITC.
I am quoted as writing:“Unlike most welfare schemes, the EITC does not encourage idleness.
Doug responds: “And neither does a living wage which obviously relies on the individual performing long hours of work.”
The living wage is not a welfare scheme. It does not involve the transfer of public resources.
Welfare schemes are programs where the government gives cash or non-cash benefits to needy or elderly people (or sadly in many instances, to big companies and rich farmers).
The EITC, though, is a welfare scheme. And the way it is structured, it encourages and rewards work.
By contrast, many welfare programs for the poor penalize work: i.e., people can lose their benefits (food stamps, housing aid, medicaid, AFDC, etc.) as soon as they take a paying job. As such, getting a job can result in a lower standard of living. And that is a perverse incentive not found in the EITC.
“I do not see the living wage proposal placed on large employers in Davis being a huge depresser of the job market.”
In the short run, it probably wouldn’t be a “huge depresser.” Longer term, it would depress entry-level employment insofar as companies could substitute away from low-skilled labor. Most workers at Target are not entry level or low-skilled. But some are. And those people would be the victims of this proposal.
So the big losers in that trade-off are the people who can never get a start in the workforce; and as the Neumark study shows, that has severe long-term negative consequences for the poor.
“Rather I see this as an opportunity for the city to keep more of its employees residing in the city limits which will improve revenue not only for the city but also for its businesses.”
That is not an obvious conclusion, and I know of no evidence to suggest it would happen. It seems to me logical that if Target pays less money per hour, then it would make less sense for Woodlanders and Dixonites and West Sacramentans to travel all the way to Davis for a job.
By contrast, if the Davis Target were forced to pay a higher wage, someone now, for example, who lives and works in Woodland, and has the skill-set that it takes to make more money, would be more likely to apply for a job at the Davis Target and travel here to work.
In the end, that’s an empirical question. We’ll just have to see where the workers at Target live.
The bottom line is this: if someone has few workskills and little experience, he cannot generate a lot of income per hour for his employer. (If you give him a job and a chance to learn some skills, he will be able to improve his lot.) So if you force his employer to pay more than he is worth to the employer, then he won’t get a chance to ever start work and improve his prospects. It is for that reason that you want to eliminate unnecessary rigidities from labor markets.
By imposiing a “living wage” on Target, you will increase the median wage earned by its employees. You won’t do that by lifting everyone up in the organization. Rather, you will do that by cutting off those at the bottom end who, in many cases, can least afford to be cut off.
“Perhaps Rifkin forgets that Heystek has almost as little power to enact an EITC as City Councilmember as Rifkin does as a columnist.”
No one needs to “enact” an EITC. We have one. It should be expanded and made more generous.
As far as my forgetfulness goes, I am aware that the Davis City Council does not control federal tax policy. It equally does not control federal war policy or abortion policy or other policies about which it has weighed in. However, insofar as improving the EITC would benefit residents of Davis (and other communities around the country), it seems to me wise that the council should discuss the issue, and if they agree, they ought to pass a resolution in support of a bigger and better EITC. (I should note that every time the Congress has written a new tax law since 1986, the EITC has been expanded and improved.)
“So if Heystek is to help low-income families, he has to do things that are actually within his power.”
Fair enough. But because the living wage (and the minimum wage for that matter) are counter to the interests of poor families, Heystek and his colleagues on the council should be mindful of that and oppose them.
Lamar told me, in response to my column, that he would like city staff to consider what I wrote about the living wage and the EITC.
I am quoted as writing:“Unlike most welfare schemes, the EITC does not encourage idleness.
Doug responds: “And neither does a living wage which obviously relies on the individual performing long hours of work.”
The living wage is not a welfare scheme. It does not involve the transfer of public resources.
Welfare schemes are programs where the government gives cash or non-cash benefits to needy or elderly people (or sadly in many instances, to big companies and rich farmers).
The EITC, though, is a welfare scheme. And the way it is structured, it encourages and rewards work.
By contrast, many welfare programs for the poor penalize work: i.e., people can lose their benefits (food stamps, housing aid, medicaid, AFDC, etc.) as soon as they take a paying job. As such, getting a job can result in a lower standard of living. And that is a perverse incentive not found in the EITC.
“I do not see the living wage proposal placed on large employers in Davis being a huge depresser of the job market.”
In the short run, it probably wouldn’t be a “huge depresser.” Longer term, it would depress entry-level employment insofar as companies could substitute away from low-skilled labor. Most workers at Target are not entry level or low-skilled. But some are. And those people would be the victims of this proposal.
So the big losers in that trade-off are the people who can never get a start in the workforce; and as the Neumark study shows, that has severe long-term negative consequences for the poor.
“Rather I see this as an opportunity for the city to keep more of its employees residing in the city limits which will improve revenue not only for the city but also for its businesses.”
That is not an obvious conclusion, and I know of no evidence to suggest it would happen. It seems to me logical that if Target pays less money per hour, then it would make less sense for Woodlanders and Dixonites and West Sacramentans to travel all the way to Davis for a job.
By contrast, if the Davis Target were forced to pay a higher wage, someone now, for example, who lives and works in Woodland, and has the skill-set that it takes to make more money, would be more likely to apply for a job at the Davis Target and travel here to work.
In the end, that’s an empirical question. We’ll just have to see where the workers at Target live.
The bottom line is this: if someone has few workskills and little experience, he cannot generate a lot of income per hour for his employer. (If you give him a job and a chance to learn some skills, he will be able to improve his lot.) So if you force his employer to pay more than he is worth to the employer, then he won’t get a chance to ever start work and improve his prospects. It is for that reason that you want to eliminate unnecessary rigidities from labor markets.
By imposiing a “living wage” on Target, you will increase the median wage earned by its employees. You won’t do that by lifting everyone up in the organization. Rather, you will do that by cutting off those at the bottom end who, in many cases, can least afford to be cut off.
Rich:
They are certainly free to pass a resolution in support of increasing the EITC. I don’t see that as necessarily mutually exclusive to passing a living wage.
“It seems to me logical that if Target pays less money per hour, then it would make less sense for Woodlanders and Dixonites and West Sacramentans to travel all the way to Davis for a job.”
That is perhaps true. But if one cannot afford to live in Davis because they receive too little income, the likely alternative is that these jobs will go to out of city residents.
“The bottom line is this: if someone has few workskills and little experience, he cannot generate a lot of income per hour for his employer.”
I assume what you mean is that people with few workskills cannot generate a lot of marginal income per hour for his employer above what his competition would produce. After all, Target retail stores generate a lot of revenue, with a lot of unskilled positions.
The bottom line for me is this: finding a way that people who work 40 hours a week can actually make enough to be able to live on it.
“By imposiing a “living wage” on Target, you will increase the median wage earned by its employees.”
That is correct.
“You won’t do that by lifting everyone up in the organization. Rather, you will do that by cutting off those at the bottom end who, in many cases, can least afford to be cut off.”
That’s still an open debate for me. First of all, if you establish it going in, all you’ve done is reduce the amount of hires but increased the amount of wages. But by how much? And is it permanent. After all, the money going into the hands of the employees does not disappear into a vaccuum, it gets redistributed in the community. People will use it to buy goods and services and some of that money will end up coming back to Target directly and indirectly. And so the real question is–will a short term lowering of the amount of labor in the long run lead to an increase in profits for Target and thus more hiring? It’s the multiplier effect is it not?
Rich:
They are certainly free to pass a resolution in support of increasing the EITC. I don’t see that as necessarily mutually exclusive to passing a living wage.
“It seems to me logical that if Target pays less money per hour, then it would make less sense for Woodlanders and Dixonites and West Sacramentans to travel all the way to Davis for a job.”
That is perhaps true. But if one cannot afford to live in Davis because they receive too little income, the likely alternative is that these jobs will go to out of city residents.
“The bottom line is this: if someone has few workskills and little experience, he cannot generate a lot of income per hour for his employer.”
I assume what you mean is that people with few workskills cannot generate a lot of marginal income per hour for his employer above what his competition would produce. After all, Target retail stores generate a lot of revenue, with a lot of unskilled positions.
The bottom line for me is this: finding a way that people who work 40 hours a week can actually make enough to be able to live on it.
“By imposiing a “living wage” on Target, you will increase the median wage earned by its employees.”
That is correct.
“You won’t do that by lifting everyone up in the organization. Rather, you will do that by cutting off those at the bottom end who, in many cases, can least afford to be cut off.”
That’s still an open debate for me. First of all, if you establish it going in, all you’ve done is reduce the amount of hires but increased the amount of wages. But by how much? And is it permanent. After all, the money going into the hands of the employees does not disappear into a vaccuum, it gets redistributed in the community. People will use it to buy goods and services and some of that money will end up coming back to Target directly and indirectly. And so the real question is–will a short term lowering of the amount of labor in the long run lead to an increase in profits for Target and thus more hiring? It’s the multiplier effect is it not?
Rich:
They are certainly free to pass a resolution in support of increasing the EITC. I don’t see that as necessarily mutually exclusive to passing a living wage.
“It seems to me logical that if Target pays less money per hour, then it would make less sense for Woodlanders and Dixonites and West Sacramentans to travel all the way to Davis for a job.”
That is perhaps true. But if one cannot afford to live in Davis because they receive too little income, the likely alternative is that these jobs will go to out of city residents.
“The bottom line is this: if someone has few workskills and little experience, he cannot generate a lot of income per hour for his employer.”
I assume what you mean is that people with few workskills cannot generate a lot of marginal income per hour for his employer above what his competition would produce. After all, Target retail stores generate a lot of revenue, with a lot of unskilled positions.
The bottom line for me is this: finding a way that people who work 40 hours a week can actually make enough to be able to live on it.
“By imposiing a “living wage” on Target, you will increase the median wage earned by its employees.”
That is correct.
“You won’t do that by lifting everyone up in the organization. Rather, you will do that by cutting off those at the bottom end who, in many cases, can least afford to be cut off.”
That’s still an open debate for me. First of all, if you establish it going in, all you’ve done is reduce the amount of hires but increased the amount of wages. But by how much? And is it permanent. After all, the money going into the hands of the employees does not disappear into a vaccuum, it gets redistributed in the community. People will use it to buy goods and services and some of that money will end up coming back to Target directly and indirectly. And so the real question is–will a short term lowering of the amount of labor in the long run lead to an increase in profits for Target and thus more hiring? It’s the multiplier effect is it not?
Rich:
They are certainly free to pass a resolution in support of increasing the EITC. I don’t see that as necessarily mutually exclusive to passing a living wage.
“It seems to me logical that if Target pays less money per hour, then it would make less sense for Woodlanders and Dixonites and West Sacramentans to travel all the way to Davis for a job.”
That is perhaps true. But if one cannot afford to live in Davis because they receive too little income, the likely alternative is that these jobs will go to out of city residents.
“The bottom line is this: if someone has few workskills and little experience, he cannot generate a lot of income per hour for his employer.”
I assume what you mean is that people with few workskills cannot generate a lot of marginal income per hour for his employer above what his competition would produce. After all, Target retail stores generate a lot of revenue, with a lot of unskilled positions.
The bottom line for me is this: finding a way that people who work 40 hours a week can actually make enough to be able to live on it.
“By imposiing a “living wage” on Target, you will increase the median wage earned by its employees.”
That is correct.
“You won’t do that by lifting everyone up in the organization. Rather, you will do that by cutting off those at the bottom end who, in many cases, can least afford to be cut off.”
That’s still an open debate for me. First of all, if you establish it going in, all you’ve done is reduce the amount of hires but increased the amount of wages. But by how much? And is it permanent. After all, the money going into the hands of the employees does not disappear into a vaccuum, it gets redistributed in the community. People will use it to buy goods and services and some of that money will end up coming back to Target directly and indirectly. And so the real question is–will a short term lowering of the amount of labor in the long run lead to an increase in profits for Target and thus more hiring? It’s the multiplier effect is it not?
Rifkin’s living wage argument echos Souza’s attempt to derail the original thrust of Heystek’s proposal. No surprise here. Heystek’s proposal would have several impacts. The primary one that Heystek articulated, and which the gang of three desperately attempted to confuse by bringing up a living wage for all Davis workers, was to reduce the competitive advantage of enormous retail corporations vis a vis local Davis retailers. Another benefit ,in addition to trying to level the economic playing field for our local retailers, would be to ameliorate the worker exploitation labor policies of these big box retailers. On Sept. 15th,Souza’s floundering attempt to change the subject from the dais was shot down by the city attorney who also offered the information that the city of Emeryville is pursuing a similar focused wage ordinance in court that is directed towards their hotel corporation operations. She also offered the opinion that her legal firm believed that Emeryville will prevail. I hope that councilman Heystek is not diverted by the gang of three’s “blowing smoke”, a lawyer’s term for arguments that are presented to confuse rather than clarify. His ordinance’s orginal purpose was to focus on big box retail corporations and the unbridled economic power that they have to destroy local business and promote their “race to the bottom” labor policy. The lumping together of international retailer corporations and Davis merchants is
an obvious diversionary tactic to “muddy the waters” of Heystek’s most excellent idea.
Rifkin’s living wage argument echos Souza’s attempt to derail the original thrust of Heystek’s proposal. No surprise here. Heystek’s proposal would have several impacts. The primary one that Heystek articulated, and which the gang of three desperately attempted to confuse by bringing up a living wage for all Davis workers, was to reduce the competitive advantage of enormous retail corporations vis a vis local Davis retailers. Another benefit ,in addition to trying to level the economic playing field for our local retailers, would be to ameliorate the worker exploitation labor policies of these big box retailers. On Sept. 15th,Souza’s floundering attempt to change the subject from the dais was shot down by the city attorney who also offered the information that the city of Emeryville is pursuing a similar focused wage ordinance in court that is directed towards their hotel corporation operations. She also offered the opinion that her legal firm believed that Emeryville will prevail. I hope that councilman Heystek is not diverted by the gang of three’s “blowing smoke”, a lawyer’s term for arguments that are presented to confuse rather than clarify. His ordinance’s orginal purpose was to focus on big box retail corporations and the unbridled economic power that they have to destroy local business and promote their “race to the bottom” labor policy. The lumping together of international retailer corporations and Davis merchants is
an obvious diversionary tactic to “muddy the waters” of Heystek’s most excellent idea.
Rifkin’s living wage argument echos Souza’s attempt to derail the original thrust of Heystek’s proposal. No surprise here. Heystek’s proposal would have several impacts. The primary one that Heystek articulated, and which the gang of three desperately attempted to confuse by bringing up a living wage for all Davis workers, was to reduce the competitive advantage of enormous retail corporations vis a vis local Davis retailers. Another benefit ,in addition to trying to level the economic playing field for our local retailers, would be to ameliorate the worker exploitation labor policies of these big box retailers. On Sept. 15th,Souza’s floundering attempt to change the subject from the dais was shot down by the city attorney who also offered the information that the city of Emeryville is pursuing a similar focused wage ordinance in court that is directed towards their hotel corporation operations. She also offered the opinion that her legal firm believed that Emeryville will prevail. I hope that councilman Heystek is not diverted by the gang of three’s “blowing smoke”, a lawyer’s term for arguments that are presented to confuse rather than clarify. His ordinance’s orginal purpose was to focus on big box retail corporations and the unbridled economic power that they have to destroy local business and promote their “race to the bottom” labor policy. The lumping together of international retailer corporations and Davis merchants is
an obvious diversionary tactic to “muddy the waters” of Heystek’s most excellent idea.
Rifkin’s living wage argument echos Souza’s attempt to derail the original thrust of Heystek’s proposal. No surprise here. Heystek’s proposal would have several impacts. The primary one that Heystek articulated, and which the gang of three desperately attempted to confuse by bringing up a living wage for all Davis workers, was to reduce the competitive advantage of enormous retail corporations vis a vis local Davis retailers. Another benefit ,in addition to trying to level the economic playing field for our local retailers, would be to ameliorate the worker exploitation labor policies of these big box retailers. On Sept. 15th,Souza’s floundering attempt to change the subject from the dais was shot down by the city attorney who also offered the information that the city of Emeryville is pursuing a similar focused wage ordinance in court that is directed towards their hotel corporation operations. She also offered the opinion that her legal firm believed that Emeryville will prevail. I hope that councilman Heystek is not diverted by the gang of three’s “blowing smoke”, a lawyer’s term for arguments that are presented to confuse rather than clarify. His ordinance’s orginal purpose was to focus on big box retail corporations and the unbridled economic power that they have to destroy local business and promote their “race to the bottom” labor policy. The lumping together of international retailer corporations and Davis merchants is
an obvious diversionary tactic to “muddy the waters” of Heystek’s most excellent idea.
“reduce the competitive advantage of enormous retail corporations vis a vis local Davis retailers.”
And this is critical–because right now Target stores have huge advantages by being able to purchase products in large bulk and thus pay much less per unit than a smaller business. If the smaller business can pay less for labor–they can get those workers that Target wouldn’t hire and be able to compete better with a Target store.
Another point I think that everyone misses is that wages are a matter of priorities. Target and Wal Mart have largely kept costs down on the backs of their employees AND the backs of the tax payers. Wal Mart does not provide health insurance and instead relies on Medicaid to provide health care to their employees–which means that the tax payer pays for their employees health insurance.
Costco on the other hand, has found other ways to produce cheap products–they pay their workers well and given them good health coverage. Same with Starbucks. There is no reason that you can’t make a profit while paying your workers well. It’s a matter of priorities. The average Costco worker (and not just in California) gets 15.97 per hour and 82 percent of them have health insurance. All Lamar is asking is that Target pays $10 per hour, that should be workable.
“reduce the competitive advantage of enormous retail corporations vis a vis local Davis retailers.”
And this is critical–because right now Target stores have huge advantages by being able to purchase products in large bulk and thus pay much less per unit than a smaller business. If the smaller business can pay less for labor–they can get those workers that Target wouldn’t hire and be able to compete better with a Target store.
Another point I think that everyone misses is that wages are a matter of priorities. Target and Wal Mart have largely kept costs down on the backs of their employees AND the backs of the tax payers. Wal Mart does not provide health insurance and instead relies on Medicaid to provide health care to their employees–which means that the tax payer pays for their employees health insurance.
Costco on the other hand, has found other ways to produce cheap products–they pay their workers well and given them good health coverage. Same with Starbucks. There is no reason that you can’t make a profit while paying your workers well. It’s a matter of priorities. The average Costco worker (and not just in California) gets 15.97 per hour and 82 percent of them have health insurance. All Lamar is asking is that Target pays $10 per hour, that should be workable.
“reduce the competitive advantage of enormous retail corporations vis a vis local Davis retailers.”
And this is critical–because right now Target stores have huge advantages by being able to purchase products in large bulk and thus pay much less per unit than a smaller business. If the smaller business can pay less for labor–they can get those workers that Target wouldn’t hire and be able to compete better with a Target store.
Another point I think that everyone misses is that wages are a matter of priorities. Target and Wal Mart have largely kept costs down on the backs of their employees AND the backs of the tax payers. Wal Mart does not provide health insurance and instead relies on Medicaid to provide health care to their employees–which means that the tax payer pays for their employees health insurance.
Costco on the other hand, has found other ways to produce cheap products–they pay their workers well and given them good health coverage. Same with Starbucks. There is no reason that you can’t make a profit while paying your workers well. It’s a matter of priorities. The average Costco worker (and not just in California) gets 15.97 per hour and 82 percent of them have health insurance. All Lamar is asking is that Target pays $10 per hour, that should be workable.
“reduce the competitive advantage of enormous retail corporations vis a vis local Davis retailers.”
And this is critical–because right now Target stores have huge advantages by being able to purchase products in large bulk and thus pay much less per unit than a smaller business. If the smaller business can pay less for labor–they can get those workers that Target wouldn’t hire and be able to compete better with a Target store.
Another point I think that everyone misses is that wages are a matter of priorities. Target and Wal Mart have largely kept costs down on the backs of their employees AND the backs of the tax payers. Wal Mart does not provide health insurance and instead relies on Medicaid to provide health care to their employees–which means that the tax payer pays for their employees health insurance.
Costco on the other hand, has found other ways to produce cheap products–they pay their workers well and given them good health coverage. Same with Starbucks. There is no reason that you can’t make a profit while paying your workers well. It’s a matter of priorities. The average Costco worker (and not just in California) gets 15.97 per hour and 82 percent of them have health insurance. All Lamar is asking is that Target pays $10 per hour, that should be workable.