A number of organizers for a minimum wage hike came to city council on Tuesday night to support a new initiative.
Joaquin Chavez noted that, along with the holiday festivities, “I was called to think about a dark cloud that hangs over our community – it’s the crisis afflicting low wage workers and their families. A crisis that is characterized by both stagnating and even declining wages, loss of jobs, loss of working hours and an ever-increasing cost of living.”
“We need to take the kinds of actions that are within the power of the city to address some of these problems,” Mr. Chavez said. “We do have certain choices we can make – we can support local initiatives, local proposals that can support and raise wages for the low wage workers in our community.”
Mr. Chavez pointed out that, since the start of the Great Recession, many of the jobs lost were of the middle wage variety and they were replaced by jobs that were far lower in wages and benefits.
“This is a problem that falls primarily on our communities of color and other marginalized communities and it’s time that we saw some sort of proposal coming out of the city leaderships and support for local initiatives that can move us forward in addressing this problem,” he concluded.
Sean Raycraft with Davis Citizens for a Living Wage followed up by asking the council “to address the issue of income inequality and to find a policy solution that will specifically target Davis.”
John Rungin, the president of the union that represents librarians and lecturers at UC, said, “I see as an educator the deleterious effects of [in]equality all the time at the university, it’s sort of a creeping rot in our society. It’s something we have to address. I don’t think it’s going to go away unless we take positive steps.”
He said he supports the addressing of the issue by the city of Davis.
Jeff Otter, with UAW (an affiliate of the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, or simply United Auto Workers) 5810 representing the Post Docs at UC Davis, pushed for a task force. However, he noted that the task force in Sacramento, which pushed for the minimum wage compromise bill, is a cautionary tale.
According to Mr. Otter, they had a good goal of finding a compromise. “It seems to me that the question to answer is not what’s a good compromise, the answer is what’s the right thing to do.”
He quoted President Roosevelt’s statement: “A minimum wage is intended to be a living wage not a mere subsistence wage, but a decent living.” He said, “That seems to me an appropriate goal for a task force that intends to address income inequality.”
In October, the Sacramento City Council approved a compromise measure that would increase the minimum wage to $12.50 an hour by 2020, with increases after that date linked to the Consumer Price Index.
However, in July, the state legislature once again failed to act on a minimum wage hike that would have raised state minimum wages to $13 per hour over the next two years.
Assemblymember Jimmy Gomez, chair of the Assembly Appropriations Committee, suggested he would look for other changes to advance Senate Bill 3 next year.
“Californians need an approach to raising the minimum wage that is sensitive to local economies and is appropriately accounted for in the state budget,” the Democrat from Los Angeles said in a statement. “The Appropriations Committee will work with the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the speaker and others to ensure we review a comprehensive array of options to rationally increase the minimum wage throughout the state, including the potential for regional increases that reflect differing economies.”
Senator Mark Leno, who sponsored the bill, stated, “My strong support for a statewide minimum wage that raises California families, women and children out of poverty is unshakable.”
The bill also would have tied the state’s minimum wage to inflation beginning in 2019.
It faced significant opposition from business groups including the California Chamber of Commerce, who called it a “job killers” bill.
Labor and other activists had been pushing for a $15 per hour minimum wage for Sacramento and Davis, although efforts in Davis two years ago ended up stalling with opposition from business interests.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
How will raising the minimum wage create more jobs and working hours? If anything it will create less jobs and less hours worked. The ever increasing cost of living? Not this year according to the COLA stats.
Those people can argue for a Living Wage, or raise the minimum wage. One will not accomplish the other.. Meanwhile, in Davis, people are trying to pay city workers less and less. Are these people the ones who work as a burger flipper for 20 years or are they the $100K people who think their kids should get out of college and get $50K a year to start flipping burgers?
The $15 minimum wage doesn’t seem to working so well in Seattle.
http://www.chicksonright.com/seattle-got-their-precious-15-minimum-wage-but-look-at-what-happened-to-the-job-market/
http://mynorthwest.com/992/2795104/Fact-Check-Is-15-minimum-wage-really-killing-Seattle-jobs
The amount of energy that is poured into this debate over minimum wages, cost of living, whose work is worth more than whose and to whom is exhausting. The larger tragedy is the amount of creative energy and talent lost to this debate over who is more worthy than whom.
On another thread, Frankly expressed what I believe that we can appreciate from our personal lives. What we value the most varies depending on what our needs of the moment are. If our house is on fire, we value a firefighter. If we have just been robbed, we value the police. If our toilet is overflowing, we value a plumber. If our child has appendicitis, we value a surgeon. If our waste is piling up, we value the garbage collector. All roles are necessary to a smoothly functioning society. So why do we not feel that all roles should be compensated above a poverty level of existence ?
We have created a society in which many who do not themselves create anything of real value are paid exorbitantly while those who actually do the creating may not be even earning a living wage. And we do it thoughtlessly because we have been taught that this is the best way to be and cannot imagine anything better. And we do it at enormous cost to ourselves and to our society. Just think of how often the term “slaving away” is used to describe what we do to earn our living. But what could we achieve if we, as contributing members to society were guaranteed a living standard ? What might we achieve if we were not “slaves” to simply earning enough to live ? My main complaint with the “raise the minimum wage folks” is not that they are asking for too much but that they are not thinking nearly big enough.
This is an interesting view. How would you suggest that society determine what it means to “create something of real value”? Does an athlete Create something of value? Does an entertainer create something of value? How about someone who starts a business? What about someone who invents a new product or process? How about a lawyer? What about politicians?
Perhaps you can give us some examples of people that you think are paid exorbitantly and don’t create anything of real value.
Hell, how about our president?
Tia’s stuck on this Utopian view without filling in much of the “how”. The only conclusion would be assignment of value by committee.
Frankly
No need to “assign” value at all if everyone receives a living wage ( whatever that is determined to be) for whatever their contribution is.
So your idea is now just decide what the living wage is and then give that to everyone no matter what they do for a living, no matter how many hours they work?
And also keep the borders open and welcome in the poor and uneducated from all over the world… anyone that wants in or that liberals want in?
TopCat
Paris Hilton comes immediately to mind as do the Kardashians.
Personally I would agree with you on those choices. The problem is that there are a lot of people that do seem to get a lot of entertainment value from these people. So the question is who decides what “real value” is and how does society reward those that do provide “real value”?
One of the strange things is people get paid according to wages made up out of thin air. They are like real estate prices, which go up and down “because the other ones do”. But wages only go down, in buying power if not actual dollars.
the owners of a business pay people according to what they will take, and what abuse they will put up with as well.
The wages have little to do with actual costs or income. It is no wonder some employees succumb to the temptation to steal and cheat customers and employers.
the city and University also do this, with Press releases that proclaim how good they are doing, and yet argue they “have no money” at bargaining time.
People who work fulltime should be able to pay rent, clothe and feed themselves. This benefits us all.
I agree with your goal 100%. However, the method that you have chosen to reach that goal has serious flaws.
This is why students are buying houses with their loan money?
Someone who works fulltime at minimum wage ($9 per hour, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year) would make $18,720 per year. This is enough for a single person to pay rent and clothe and feed themselves. It does not provide a lavish lifestyle, but it is certainly a very livable lifestyle.
The California minimum wage is going up to $10 per hour soon, so that same person will soon be enjoying an 11.1% raise to $20,800 per year. If a single person claims they can’t live on that, they need to talk to me about their personal budgeting and spending.
I think the average rent for a single-bedroom apartment in Davis is $920. Most young people in Davis working minimum wage jobs tend to have roommates and share rent to reduce their expenses.
What seems to be driving this demand to raise the minimum wage is not the plight of these people, it is the single-mothers attempting to support a family with children. It is our social justice crusaders pushing for a solution to that problem and really at the expense of those young people that, like you point out, can and should be able to live within a budget of minimum wage. But not after they get their hours cut and can no longer find work because the social justice crusaders have succeeded in forcing a minimum wage hike.
The single-mothers raising children on minimum wage is a problem with other root causes that we should be focusing on. One is the lack of immigration control.
“is the single-mothers attempting to support a family with children”
what is your basis for this comment?
The California minimum wage went up from $8 to $9 in July 2014. This anmounts to a 12.5% raise. It is set to go up from $9 to $10 in January 2016. This is an 11.1% raise.
On a percentage basis, a minimum wage worker who gets these two raises and doesn’t get laid off or have their hours cut is doing a lot better than most workers.
I urge everyone that cares about gaps in income to read Charles Murray’s NYT Bestseller: Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960–2010
Ignore the “White” part of the title… that is only because he needed to control on this demographic to illustrate the points he makes. Racism or racial injustice are not subjects of this book.
Murray has a well-vetted inventory of causes for what is basically a wide and widening gap between what he calls the new upper class and everyone else. Note that he sets aside that favored left political boogieman, the super rich. He explains this point accurately as the super rich always existing and always having little to do with income disparity following the enactment of anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws.
I plan to write a VG article related to this topic that summarizes Murray’s points. But the book is a fascinating read and I highly recommend others read it. It follows on his other NYT Bestseller The Bell Curve.
These two books also help explain some of what is currently happening on college campuses. But more about that in another later VG article.
The key to solving any problem is to first understand the root causes of the problem.
The root cause of stagnant lower wages is not the lack of legislated mandates to increase those wages. Stagnant lower wages are a symptom of an over-supply of low-skilled labor and and under-supply of jobs that are a better fit for mid-skilled labor… thereby causing more mid-skilled employees to compete for jobs that are a better fit for low-skilled employees.
Hence the college-educated adult trying to support a family on minimum-wage work.
And let’s be honest about the situation in Davis. The primary reason that minimum wage workers struggle so much in this town – other than the fact that they cannot find higher-paying jobs – is that rents are sky-high. Raising the minimum wage in Davis is simply a no-growther tax on business.
And anyone concerned about the transformation of the Davis downtown from a mixed-use entertainment and retail location to a full low-end food and drinking entertainment location should be against raising the minimum wage. Alternatively they should be focused on advocating growing our local economy and doing things to help make housing more affordable. Including a shuttle service between Davis and other surrounding communities where housing is cheaper.
charles murray is a hack and most of his past publications are poorly sourced and he doesn’t seem to understand how to do statistical analysis.
So someone with advanced degrees from MIT and Harvard are only credible when they spout your same liberal views. I get it. Thanks for proving again that you are incapable of thinking outside your liberal worldview. I actually expected better from you.
I’ve found that unless it agrees with liberal views or it’s not from the ACLU or like left leaning groups then it can’t be considered credible on the Vanguard.
i don’t care what their views are – murray is sloppy in his research methods. for example, why did murray not submit his seminal book to peer review prior to publication?
Right. Because you say it. Too bad you don’t demonstrate it… ever.
That is the old lefty thing… disagree with the conclusions and so attack the credibility of the person providing them.
This is exactly why I go partisan sometimes. Because there is not really any way to have a reasonable debate on points that challenge liberal views.
When their view get challenged with real data and objective analysis, the liberal just retreats into a shell and writes “Murray is a hack.”
And so it makes sense to just point out that liberals, in general, tend to be incapable of reasonable debate when their core liberal beliefs are challenged.
It is similar to how bible-thumping Christians respond to challenge to their religion.
so why didn’t murray get it peer reviewed? why did he use questionable iq data to demonstrate group differences in intelligence when he knew that it was unreliable?
He footnoted everything and qualified all data sources for what they were. He didn’t hide anything. He didn’t lie.
I am guessing that you think Paul Krugman’s writing is more believable. Talk about a hack.
Foot noting is not a measure of research validity.
Yolobus already operates the route 42A and 42B busses that provide transportation between Woodland – Davis, and Sacramento-Davis. Public transportation between Davis-Dixon, and Davis-Vacaville is almost non-existent. Davis-West Sacramento is also very difficult.
Most low income folks I know that work in Davis and live elsewhere have automobiles and drive themselves to work.
Yes, that’s why most of the low wage workers that I know in Davis actually live elsewhere and commute into Davis for their jobs. For those that live in Woodland it’s an easy 15 to 20 minute commute so it’s not a tremendous burden.
Beyond minimum wage, are the quality of life issues. My German and Finnish friends work fewer hours than their American cousins and have more vacation and family leave time and healthcare. Almost anywhere in the EU, quality of life is better for all workers, than in the U.S.A.
So why do you live here and not there? I hear this all the time from my left-leaning friends that northern Europe is the model of nirvana and they think the US should follow… yet they don’t seem to want to migrate there.
There are many reasons that, for example Finland, a country the size and population of Wisconsin, can support such a rich set of government-provided social benefits. The US is not comparable.
Frankly
“So why do you live here and not there?”
Probably for much the same reasons that you continue to live in Davis while all the while complaining about the liberal tendencies of the majority of the residents. Maybe because we love this town and this country while still be able to appreciate what we perceive as the short comings. You think ?
That is not why I live here. I live here because I love to argue with educated liberals. And I am close to the mountains and ocean. And we happen to still live in a general region that has a reasonable population of right-thinking people even though Davis is hard left.
But mostly because my place of business is here and I have loyalty to my employees.
Otherwise I would probably not be living here.
But it is true that liberals can make for nice places to live where the riff raff are generally kept away from high costs… but none of those places are sustainable so I am just exploiting that good stuff until it crashes.
My missus’ orthopaedic issues prevent her from making any big moves. Otherwise, we would very likely live abroad. The size of the EU countries is irrelevant to the argument. The USA does not lack the capacity, we lack the will. We put the health and safety of the military-industrial complex and the financial Cabal ahead of the health and safety of our children, elderly and veterans. The greatest sins in our modern America are poverty and illness.
Brings to mind this great piece from a couple of day ago…
http://www.wsj.com/articles/liberalisms-imaginary-enemies-1448929043?tesla=y
That seems very unlikely.
How about we put some money on that? 😉
“Hunger in America is an imaginary enemy.”
Yet approximately 1.5 million CA famlies with children 5 years old and under are receiving W.I.C.
“The campus-rape epidemic—in which one in five female college students is said to be the victim of sexual assault—is an imaginary enemy. Never mind the debunked rape scandals at Duke and the University of Virginia, or the soon-to-be-debunked case at the heart of “The Hunting Ground,” a documentary about an alleged sexual assault at Harvard Law School.”
Wow. You site three examples and that’s supposed to nullify all the young women on college campuses across the U.S. who know they were raped. Unbelievable misogyny.
“Liberal advocacy groups routinely claim that one in seven Americans is hungry—in a country where the poorest counties have the highest rates of obesity.”
Obesity and hunger are not contradictory, but actually related to poor eating habits and lack of access to nutritional foods. You should read some of the research here rather than copy and pasting from a right wing column in the Wall Street Journal.
THere is a sizable school-age population where the only regular meals they get are the breakfast and lunch at school – and many of those meals are laden with sugar, a receipe for obesity even as they are under-nourished.
The comment about rape is a joke in light of the 70 percent un-reported statistic.
this is crockery. i suggest we stop with the cut and paste, especially this which is a copyright violation.
Nope. I included the link to the article and only includes parts of it.
Again, you are just showing how you can’t handle challenges to your worldview.
Nothing meaningful to say in opposition so you just claim “crokery”
At least David had some retort. Although I don’t know how one goes about proving 70-percennt unreported. You don’t. Because it isn’t real. It is imaginary.
Frankly, do you understand how the 70 percent figure is derived or not? It’s based on the annual justice department annual crime survey. I guess you can say that people are lying about being raped but the fact that it remains very consistent across time from random survey to random survey, I think undermines that claim.
Perhaps you haven’t seen the unemployment rates for Greece? Also take a look at the unemployment rate in Spain. Also, take a look at costs such as taxes and the price of gasoline in Europe. There are many things I like about Europe, but I choose not to live there.
Life is better for workers in Finland? Are you serious? Finland’s GDP has been flat or dropping for the last four years. Unemployment there is 9.4% and wages are continuing to fall. One of the major problems with their economy is their high cost of labor makes it difficult to compete selling the goods they export. Are you saying that it is better to have twice the unemployment and a declining economy where workers receive more vacation and work fewer hours?
My kids were based in Europe for 4 years and since I fly free (former airline employee) my wife and I were able to visit and travel much of Europe. Believe me, there’s many homeless beggars in Europe.
Yes, and Europe also has a big problem of impoverished immigrants that don’t have the same values as Northern Europeans. I see big problems ahead for Europe.
“It is similar to how bible-thumping Christians respond to challenge to their religion”
And how Randians cling to the ideology of this woman whose extreme beliefs led her to glorify a rapist and feature another as a major protagonist in one of her novels all in the name of acting in one’s own self interest.
The most brilliant visionaries and leaders are always a bit off, don’t you think?
“The most brilliant visionaries and leaders are always a bit off, don’t you think?”
Not off enough to defend and idealize rapists !
Or perhaps I misunderstood and you were referring to me…..since you see me as a “unicorn chaser” I suppose it is possible….( wink, wink) !
It’s not clear from this article what the speakers were actually advocating.
Yes, I was thinking the same thing. What is it that the speakers are advocating? They say they want the Council “to address the issue of income inequality and to find a policy solution that will specifically target Davis.” What policy solutions are they thinking of?
There seems to be a lot of confused thinking here.
it’s not clear from the speakers what they were advocating for – some sort of task force? is there one?
Pretty clear to me…
The single individual poverty line is $11,770. $8 per hour times 2080 hours is $16,640. Two family members working for minimum wage would be $33,280. That covers the poverty line for up to six people in the family.
So he wants Davis to start a task force to increase the minimum wage locally? Good luck. Is that what the other speakers wanted?
I think there are already two ballot measures in 2016 to raise the State minimum wage to $15 per hour. Are they going to start a task for to try and get $20 by 2020?
The current California minimum wage is $9 per hour and it’s going up to $10 per hour, so your figures are a bit out of date. I do think that a single person working full time at minimum wage can do OK. I’m not suggesting that they will live in luxury, but they can provide all the basics of life.
TopCat
“So the question is who decides what “real value” is and how does society reward those that do provide “real value”?”
That is precisely my point. If we provided a base living stipend to everyone, no one would be arbitrarily deciding that the work of an “entertainer” or someone “famous for being famous” was worth more than that of a kindergarten teacher, or that the work of a surgeon is worth more than that of the housekeeping staff, both of which are critical if your surgery is to be done safely and with as little risk of infection as possible. This would eliminate the need for anyone to decide what is “real value” as all contributions would be considered to be equal. If people wanted to earn more, fine, let them knock themselves out. But everyone gets enough as the baseline.
How would you propose that we (our society) get from where we are to your vision of society? Do you envision a society with no private employers where every aspect of the economy is controlled by an all powerful government? That is what it sounds like you are advocating.
Topcat
Sorry I did not see your post earlier. If you are still reading it certainly deserves a response. That is not at all what I am advocating. What I would recommend is the guarantee of a living stipend for everyone who is making a positive contribution to the society. We already do this for a number of groups. We give the military living stipends, we provide a living stipend for various people providing services we deem desirable in AmeriCorps , the public and Indian Health Services and probably other groups with which I do not have direct knowledge. So there is clearly precedent for guaranteeing a living income.
What I am recommending is expanding this to everyone who is on a life track that our society has decided is desirable. For example, students. My belief is that we not only should not charge for advanced education, we should pay everyone who is in school a living stipend as their efforts are statistically likely to benefit the society as a whole. Likewise any individual who chooses to stay at home to care for children or an ill or incapacitated individual whether family member or not should receive a living stipend. If a business in the private sector cannot afford to pay its workers a minimum standard, the rest could be supplied to the worker by a common fund so that no one who works full time has to rely upon the individual charity of other workers such as had become the yearly WalMart plea to its workers.
There is no need to do away with the private sector to ensure that all contributors can live a decent if not extravagant life. We have the wealth. We do not have the will.
Frankly
“So your idea is now just decide what the living wage is and then give that to everyone no matter what they do for a living, no matter how many hours they work?”
No. I would suggest that we determine some baseline number of hours that each individual would contribute doing what ever it is that they do. Somewhere around 40 hours might be a reasonable number since that is our traditional work week. If someone wanted to earn more, fine, let them work more hours for more pay. I have no desire to limit what someone can make. I just want to make sure that everyone has enough to live on without having to rely on the charity of others. The prime example once again has been WalMart which again this year has asked their employees for donations so that other employees do not go hungry through the holidays. You yourself told me personally that you do not like this business model, and yet, WalMart is a tremendously effective at helping the already rich family, just not so good at helping their employees with salaries sufficient to meet their basic needs.
How would this work in terms of funding it? Where would the money come from to pay everyone a baseline amount of money?
She has already answered this question with her opinion that there is enough money if we take from the rich and distribute out in her egalitarian fairness Utopian scheme. Thereby proving again that liberals tend to think money just exists and does not need to be earned.
There is actually an idea being discussed that is supported by some of the right and left. That is to do away will all the myriad of social welfare and tax loopholes. Do away with corporate tax and implement a flat tax on income that is reduced and supplemented with a flat consumption tax. Then distribute to EVERY adult citizen some amount of money that covers the baseline poverty level. Then also do away with the national minimum wage.
you’re talking about a variant of a negative income tax.
Instead of just taking their money, which will make them so sad, why don’t we make a game show out of it. If they can live on the minimum wage for a month, without cheating(fat chance) they get to keep all of their money and assets, if not they can be one of the poor for a year, before we incrementally allow them access to some of their funds. There is a proposal before Iceland’s government to sell off Islandbanki’s assets and give every citizen 30,000 kr. Don’t worry about the crooked bankers, they sent them to prison. What a concept. Should be much more palatable than my landlady’s plan to use the 1% for animal feed….
;>)/
Yes, Frankly, let’s get rid of all tax “loopholes” and credits, including limits on capital gains, income limits on assessing SS taxes, elimination of renters tax credits, prop 13 limits, property tax deductions (Fed), mortgage interest deductions, solar (and other energy tax credits/deductions, exemptions for estate taxes (up to a certain limit), enterprise zone investment credits, charity deductions, political party contributions, etc.,etc. etc.
But you’d add/replace with a consumption tax. Assume you mean all food, durable goods, gasoline, cars, medical equipment (in fact, all medical care, and all medical insurance premiums), city and other utilities. Your idea is worth consideration.
Aaah yes, lets just raise taxes on the rich and all our problems will be solved. We’ll have plenty of money to take care of everything. Why don’t our politicians realize how easy this would be 😉
See here: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/government-guaranteed-basic-income
Frankly
“She has already answered this question with her opinion that there is enough money if we take from the rich and distribute out in her egalitarian fairness Utopian scheme. Thereby proving again that liberals tend to think money just exists and does not need to be earned.”
Once again, you have managed to totally misrepresent my position. I have never suggested that money does not need to be earned. I would merely broaden the definition of earning to include activities such as the pursuit of an education, skills development, care taking of relatives ( which has to be done by someone) as “earning”.
I believe my position is much closer to the idea being discussed by both the right and the left as you have stated. True, I would probably take it further than most. But I have never believed, stated nor implied that the individual does not have responsibility for “earning” their right of societal membership in the group which would be the basis for the living stipend.
Frankly
“Although I don’t know how one goes about proving 70-percennt unreported. You don’t. Because it isn’t real. It is imaginary.”
You actually started out this comment very well by admitting that you do not know how such a number could be generated. Unfortunately that is where you went astray. Just because you do not understand social problems or how the impacts of these problems are estimated does not mean that these problems do not exist. This is a common distraction I see used here when a poster does not have a suggestion with regard to how best to address a problem. Just pretend that it does’t exist or that it has minimal impact. That is usually easy to do here in Davis since many of our societal problems are not obvious here. That doesn’t mean they do not exist but merely that we have them well hidden.
Davis is more like a bedroom community with auxiliary businesses that cater to families with kids, with a small downtown core. Granted there are also convenience type stores, auto dealerships, etc. But, how many people will actually benefit by raising the minimum wage in Davis? Most people who work will commute out of town and probably make more than the minimum wage. I like the altruistic goals of progressivism, but so many times I see an effort to help a small minority come at the sacrifice of the larger, silent community. Like hey…lets give lockers to homeless, that didn’t happen, but say if it did and the homeless population increased from 80 to 120. Forty more people benefit, but the thousands of existing residents may find their quality of life declining because of this. Or let’s have a foster home in a small town that doesn’t have the resources for it. Consequence, ~500 calls for police. More to Frankly’s point – do we want to hurt businesses in an effort to raise minimum wage?
Yes; The advocated for raising the local minimum wage above the California rate consistently fail to understand the adverse consequences. The people that would be hurt the most are the most disadvantaged people because these folks will find it more difficult or impossible to find work. Included in the groups that will be hurt the most are people with mild disabilities, people with poor job skills and work habits, people with criminal records and people with substance abuse problems.