As I was poised to take office as the youngest Davis City Councilmember since Bob Black, I reaffirmed my understanding that the Davis Farmers’ Market was a prime purveyor of pungent produce – and proportionally pungent political punditry.
“Keep your eyes and ears open… and your mouth shut!” was the unsolicited nugget of wisdom flung at me by a fellow “elected” (an adjectival noun to this linguist), right as I was about to close the deal on a pound of fingerling potatoes.
She took me by so much surprise that I nearly forgot to put the “e” in potatoes.
“Could you be more explicit?” I asked in response.
However, after much careful thought, I decided to let those wise words go by the wayside in my third meeting as a councilmember when I introduced for a first reading an ordinance that would require big-box retailers to pay a living wage. And I’ve haven’t regretted it since.
My philosophy was that Davis voters deserved to know whether employees of the proposed Target would be paid justly or not. As expected, the move was derided as a political ploy to derail Measure K.
But the passage of Measure K has not discouraged me from pushing the issue further – it has encouraged me.
In the meantime, I’ve asked that we move forward with a living-wage requirement for city of Davis contracts, an idea that the rest of the Council has agreed to look into, the rationale being that our city government should lead by example.
As one of two elected officials serving on the City-Chamber of Commerce 2×2, I am a Chamber member. My campaign headquarters was located in the heart of the downtown on D Street, near Aesop’s Room and across from Crème de la Crème, a gift shop owned by Davis resident Christie Zamora. As someone commented on the Davis Wiki, “Christie… is the epitome of customer service with an amazing attention to detail. When you are in her beautiful shop, you feel like in are in a different world. We are very happy she is in Davis!” And I was fortunate to have her as a neighbor. I had the pleasure of observing her business and interacting with her on a daily basis. Although I currently don’t frequent her shop as often as I used to, I still pray that she stays in business. And as a councilmember, I certainly can help her do so.
People who dismiss the concept of a “big-box” living wage ordinance mislabel it as an anti-business measure, when in fact it is just the opposite. The ordinance I proposed last year would protect scores of local retailers – the heart and soul of our neighborhoods, including the downtown – who otherwise would find it a Herculean task to compete with the likes of Target.
As Chicago Alderman Joe Moore writes in a letter printed in the Chicago Sun-Times, “[a] visit to many of America’s small and medium towns reveals the devastating effect the retail giants have on other businesses. Downtown businesses districts often become virtual ghost towns after a Wal-Mart or other big-box retailer comes to town.”
However, the impact of big-box retail on local economies is not merely an issue for cities the size of ours. Alderman Moore continues by citing a study by the University of Illinois at Chicago’s Center for Urban Economic Development, which concludes that a Wal-Mart on Chicago’s West Side “would actually cost our city more jobs than it creates. This is because big-box retail stores rarely expand the total amount of sales generated in densely populated urban markets. Instead, the new stores take away customers from existing retailers, causing those retailers to scale back operations or close altogether.”
Big-box businesses benefit from economies of scale, which enable retailers like Target to “underprice their competitors and drive them out of business,” as Alderman Moore points out. “But the fact that many of these big-box retailers pay their employees subsistence wages and benefits plays an equal if not greater role.”
My proposed big-box living wage ordinance, like Alderman Moore’s, strives to level the playing field by making large retailers pay decent wages and benefits so that employees can provide for their families and afford to live in the community they are serving, while at the same time helping to protect locally-owned small businesses.
Besides the “anti-business” angle, there are a variety of arguments against a living wage ordinance. Davis Enterprise columnist Rich Rifkin, whom I deeply respect, writes, “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 (Earned Income Tax Credit).” I took the latter of Mr. Rifkin’s advice: I phoned and wrote to President Bush, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, and our federal legislators, asking them to consider expanding the EITC in major tax bills in the future. However, I believe that an important role of our local government is to provide local solutions to local problems. Failing to do so would mean shirking our responsibility as local decision makers.
Alderman Moore concludes his letter by making the following observation: “Competition and low prices certainly are good things, but the competition should be fair and the low prices should not come at the expense of decent wages and benefits for working families.”
A nugget of wisdom indeed.
Lamar Heystek was elected to the Davis City Council in 2006. He will have a monthly column on the People’s Vanguard of Davis.
I am more concerned with the quality of products sold by BIG-BOX stores. Some sell many products not made in the U.S. so the products have problems (toys with lead-based paint and pet food with additives poison to the pets). Locally owned stores are owned and run by people who live with us. They are more concerned with the quality of the products that they sell.
Locally produced products are important because we know what they are made of. The products almost always cost more, but the extra money paid stays in the community. I would not oppose Target or other BIG-BOX stores if their product review was credible. Instead, they underprice locally produced quality products and bankrupt the local manufacturers as well as retail businesses.
I am now able to buy underwear at Target, but I can’t buy products labelled with the ingredients content. Most food products, even if they are “organic” can contain unlabelled, overseas’ produced mystery ingredients. I don’t need Target, I need products that I know won’t harm me.
I am more concerned with the quality of products sold by BIG-BOX stores. Some sell many products not made in the U.S. so the products have problems (toys with lead-based paint and pet food with additives poison to the pets). Locally owned stores are owned and run by people who live with us. They are more concerned with the quality of the products that they sell.
Locally produced products are important because we know what they are made of. The products almost always cost more, but the extra money paid stays in the community. I would not oppose Target or other BIG-BOX stores if their product review was credible. Instead, they underprice locally produced quality products and bankrupt the local manufacturers as well as retail businesses.
I am now able to buy underwear at Target, but I can’t buy products labelled with the ingredients content. Most food products, even if they are “organic” can contain unlabelled, overseas’ produced mystery ingredients. I don’t need Target, I need products that I know won’t harm me.
I am more concerned with the quality of products sold by BIG-BOX stores. Some sell many products not made in the U.S. so the products have problems (toys with lead-based paint and pet food with additives poison to the pets). Locally owned stores are owned and run by people who live with us. They are more concerned with the quality of the products that they sell.
Locally produced products are important because we know what they are made of. The products almost always cost more, but the extra money paid stays in the community. I would not oppose Target or other BIG-BOX stores if their product review was credible. Instead, they underprice locally produced quality products and bankrupt the local manufacturers as well as retail businesses.
I am now able to buy underwear at Target, but I can’t buy products labelled with the ingredients content. Most food products, even if they are “organic” can contain unlabelled, overseas’ produced mystery ingredients. I don’t need Target, I need products that I know won’t harm me.
I am more concerned with the quality of products sold by BIG-BOX stores. Some sell many products not made in the U.S. so the products have problems (toys with lead-based paint and pet food with additives poison to the pets). Locally owned stores are owned and run by people who live with us. They are more concerned with the quality of the products that they sell.
Locally produced products are important because we know what they are made of. The products almost always cost more, but the extra money paid stays in the community. I would not oppose Target or other BIG-BOX stores if their product review was credible. Instead, they underprice locally produced quality products and bankrupt the local manufacturers as well as retail businesses.
I am now able to buy underwear at Target, but I can’t buy products labelled with the ingredients content. Most food products, even if they are “organic” can contain unlabelled, overseas’ produced mystery ingredients. I don’t need Target, I need products that I know won’t harm me.
Target Corp. now owns a piece of property in Davis that is zoned for Big Box and its value is tremendously increased as a result. Watching the new MEGA Target being built just up the road in Woodland, it is my guess that we may never see a Target on this site or at best only for a few years until the tax benefits to Target for new construction depreciation are exhausted. They can then lease or sell to Wal-Mart and Davis will have little to say about it as long as they meet the zoning…THANKS Souza, Saylor and Asmundson for your “contribution” to Davis’ future.
Target Corp. now owns a piece of property in Davis that is zoned for Big Box and its value is tremendously increased as a result. Watching the new MEGA Target being built just up the road in Woodland, it is my guess that we may never see a Target on this site or at best only for a few years until the tax benefits to Target for new construction depreciation are exhausted. They can then lease or sell to Wal-Mart and Davis will have little to say about it as long as they meet the zoning…THANKS Souza, Saylor and Asmundson for your “contribution” to Davis’ future.
Target Corp. now owns a piece of property in Davis that is zoned for Big Box and its value is tremendously increased as a result. Watching the new MEGA Target being built just up the road in Woodland, it is my guess that we may never see a Target on this site or at best only for a few years until the tax benefits to Target for new construction depreciation are exhausted. They can then lease or sell to Wal-Mart and Davis will have little to say about it as long as they meet the zoning…THANKS Souza, Saylor and Asmundson for your “contribution” to Davis’ future.
Target Corp. now owns a piece of property in Davis that is zoned for Big Box and its value is tremendously increased as a result. Watching the new MEGA Target being built just up the road in Woodland, it is my guess that we may never see a Target on this site or at best only for a few years until the tax benefits to Target for new construction depreciation are exhausted. They can then lease or sell to Wal-Mart and Davis will have little to say about it as long as they meet the zoning…THANKS Souza, Saylor and Asmundson for your “contribution” to Davis’ future.
Can Lamar or someone explain whether or not his ordinance only applies to “big-box” retailers, or does it require all employers in Davis to pay a decent wage and benefits?
Or to put it another way, does it say it’s OK for small and medium businesses to exploit workers but not big ones? Would it apply to Ace Hardware?
Can Lamar or someone explain whether or not his ordinance only applies to “big-box” retailers, or does it require all employers in Davis to pay a decent wage and benefits?
Or to put it another way, does it say it’s OK for small and medium businesses to exploit workers but not big ones? Would it apply to Ace Hardware?
Can Lamar or someone explain whether or not his ordinance only applies to “big-box” retailers, or does it require all employers in Davis to pay a decent wage and benefits?
Or to put it another way, does it say it’s OK for small and medium businesses to exploit workers but not big ones? Would it apply to Ace Hardware?
Can Lamar or someone explain whether or not his ordinance only applies to “big-box” retailers, or does it require all employers in Davis to pay a decent wage and benefits?
Or to put it another way, does it say it’s OK for small and medium businesses to exploit workers but not big ones? Would it apply to Ace Hardware?
yes, the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit is a good idea, but one, that, even if it can be achieved, would not occur until sometime in the future, while the living wage proposal is something that can be done now to improve the quality of life of some of the lowest paid workers in our communities
also, as a side note, it appears that the health care reform measures that would purportedly expand coverage may actually have the effect of eliminating the EITC, because they involve mandates for people to obtain coverage which punish them for a failure to do so by curtailing their tax deductions, such as, for poor people (the people who are disproportionately likely to illegally go without coverage)
meanwhile corporations who fail to provide coverage face less draconian fines and penalties
so, I wonder, are the health bills in Congress and California (Schwarzenegger’s plan, anyway, really stealth bills to eliminate the EITC, something that has been a goal of conservatives for many years
–Richard Estes
yes, the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit is a good idea, but one, that, even if it can be achieved, would not occur until sometime in the future, while the living wage proposal is something that can be done now to improve the quality of life of some of the lowest paid workers in our communities
also, as a side note, it appears that the health care reform measures that would purportedly expand coverage may actually have the effect of eliminating the EITC, because they involve mandates for people to obtain coverage which punish them for a failure to do so by curtailing their tax deductions, such as, for poor people (the people who are disproportionately likely to illegally go without coverage)
meanwhile corporations who fail to provide coverage face less draconian fines and penalties
so, I wonder, are the health bills in Congress and California (Schwarzenegger’s plan, anyway, really stealth bills to eliminate the EITC, something that has been a goal of conservatives for many years
–Richard Estes
yes, the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit is a good idea, but one, that, even if it can be achieved, would not occur until sometime in the future, while the living wage proposal is something that can be done now to improve the quality of life of some of the lowest paid workers in our communities
also, as a side note, it appears that the health care reform measures that would purportedly expand coverage may actually have the effect of eliminating the EITC, because they involve mandates for people to obtain coverage which punish them for a failure to do so by curtailing their tax deductions, such as, for poor people (the people who are disproportionately likely to illegally go without coverage)
meanwhile corporations who fail to provide coverage face less draconian fines and penalties
so, I wonder, are the health bills in Congress and California (Schwarzenegger’s plan, anyway, really stealth bills to eliminate the EITC, something that has been a goal of conservatives for many years
–Richard Estes
yes, the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit is a good idea, but one, that, even if it can be achieved, would not occur until sometime in the future, while the living wage proposal is something that can be done now to improve the quality of life of some of the lowest paid workers in our communities
also, as a side note, it appears that the health care reform measures that would purportedly expand coverage may actually have the effect of eliminating the EITC, because they involve mandates for people to obtain coverage which punish them for a failure to do so by curtailing their tax deductions, such as, for poor people (the people who are disproportionately likely to illegally go without coverage)
meanwhile corporations who fail to provide coverage face less draconian fines and penalties
so, I wonder, are the health bills in Congress and California (Schwarzenegger’s plan, anyway, really stealth bills to eliminate the EITC, something that has been a goal of conservatives for many years
–Richard Estes
Anonymous 9:10 said:
“Or to put it another way, does it say it’s OK for small and medium businesses to exploit workers but not big ones? Would it apply to Ace Hardware?”
As I remember the issue, the PRIMARY object of the ordinance was to have these minimum wage/benefit requirements only for some predetermined size of retail operation and so level the economic playing field for local retail business. The benefits to the workers of these Big Box operations, under this idea, are significant but SECONDARY. Saylor, Souza and Asmundson raised your same “argument” and suggested future exploration into the idea concerning City contracts. It was transparent that this was a ploy to scuttle Lamar’s original concept. I think that it is a miscalculation for Councilman Heystek to be sucked into this political quicksand….better to press for his original concept in an attempt to put the brakes on FUTURE Big Box inroads into Davis.
Anonymous 9:10 said:
“Or to put it another way, does it say it’s OK for small and medium businesses to exploit workers but not big ones? Would it apply to Ace Hardware?”
As I remember the issue, the PRIMARY object of the ordinance was to have these minimum wage/benefit requirements only for some predetermined size of retail operation and so level the economic playing field for local retail business. The benefits to the workers of these Big Box operations, under this idea, are significant but SECONDARY. Saylor, Souza and Asmundson raised your same “argument” and suggested future exploration into the idea concerning City contracts. It was transparent that this was a ploy to scuttle Lamar’s original concept. I think that it is a miscalculation for Councilman Heystek to be sucked into this political quicksand….better to press for his original concept in an attempt to put the brakes on FUTURE Big Box inroads into Davis.
Anonymous 9:10 said:
“Or to put it another way, does it say it’s OK for small and medium businesses to exploit workers but not big ones? Would it apply to Ace Hardware?”
As I remember the issue, the PRIMARY object of the ordinance was to have these minimum wage/benefit requirements only for some predetermined size of retail operation and so level the economic playing field for local retail business. The benefits to the workers of these Big Box operations, under this idea, are significant but SECONDARY. Saylor, Souza and Asmundson raised your same “argument” and suggested future exploration into the idea concerning City contracts. It was transparent that this was a ploy to scuttle Lamar’s original concept. I think that it is a miscalculation for Councilman Heystek to be sucked into this political quicksand….better to press for his original concept in an attempt to put the brakes on FUTURE Big Box inroads into Davis.
Anonymous 9:10 said:
“Or to put it another way, does it say it’s OK for small and medium businesses to exploit workers but not big ones? Would it apply to Ace Hardware?”
As I remember the issue, the PRIMARY object of the ordinance was to have these minimum wage/benefit requirements only for some predetermined size of retail operation and so level the economic playing field for local retail business. The benefits to the workers of these Big Box operations, under this idea, are significant but SECONDARY. Saylor, Souza and Asmundson raised your same “argument” and suggested future exploration into the idea concerning City contracts. It was transparent that this was a ploy to scuttle Lamar’s original concept. I think that it is a miscalculation for Councilman Heystek to be sucked into this political quicksand….better to press for his original concept in an attempt to put the brakes on FUTURE Big Box inroads into Davis.
So under your reasoning it should apply to Starbuck’s but not Mishka’s. To “level the playing field.” And isn’t ACE a giant? John Madden does their commercials. Hardly a mom and pop outfit.
This ordinance is a joke if it doesn’t apply across the board. If it does apply across the board, than I would support it strongly.
So under your reasoning it should apply to Starbuck’s but not Mishka’s. To “level the playing field.” And isn’t ACE a giant? John Madden does their commercials. Hardly a mom and pop outfit.
This ordinance is a joke if it doesn’t apply across the board. If it does apply across the board, than I would support it strongly.
So under your reasoning it should apply to Starbuck’s but not Mishka’s. To “level the playing field.” And isn’t ACE a giant? John Madden does their commercials. Hardly a mom and pop outfit.
This ordinance is a joke if it doesn’t apply across the board. If it does apply across the board, than I would support it strongly.
So under your reasoning it should apply to Starbuck’s but not Mishka’s. To “level the playing field.” And isn’t ACE a giant? John Madden does their commercials. Hardly a mom and pop outfit.
This ordinance is a joke if it doesn’t apply across the board. If it does apply across the board, than I would support it strongly.
Ace is a retailer’s coop, not a chain. Every Ace Hardware store is independently owned. Davis Ace, originally Davis Lumber, has been owned by the Anderson family since 1962
Ace is a retailer’s coop, not a chain. Every Ace Hardware store is independently owned. Davis Ace, originally Davis Lumber, has been owned by the Anderson family since 1962
Ace is a retailer’s coop, not a chain. Every Ace Hardware store is independently owned. Davis Ace, originally Davis Lumber, has been owned by the Anderson family since 1962
Ace is a retailer’s coop, not a chain. Every Ace Hardware store is independently owned. Davis Ace, originally Davis Lumber, has been owned by the Anderson family since 1962
Yes, the Davis store is owned by a Republican who lives in Sacramento and does diddly squat for Davis. But, more importantly, they sale ACE products and benefit from being part of huge national conmglomerate. Just like McDonalds’ franchises are owned by individuals, they are a chain and compete unfairly against mom and pop hamburger joints. If the Target store were “owned” by a local person would you feel any differently about Target? Why is ACE’s monopoly something people want to fight to protect? I don’t get it.
Anyway, shouldn’t a living wage ordinance be about doing what’s best for the employees, rather than trying to alter the marketplace in favor of one business over another?
Shouldn’t the employees be the PRIMARY (and ONLY) reason for a living wage ordinance, rather than a SECONDARY one? Seems like Lamar and his supporters have it backwards.
Yes, the Davis store is owned by a Republican who lives in Sacramento and does diddly squat for Davis. But, more importantly, they sale ACE products and benefit from being part of huge national conmglomerate. Just like McDonalds’ franchises are owned by individuals, they are a chain and compete unfairly against mom and pop hamburger joints. If the Target store were “owned” by a local person would you feel any differently about Target? Why is ACE’s monopoly something people want to fight to protect? I don’t get it.
Anyway, shouldn’t a living wage ordinance be about doing what’s best for the employees, rather than trying to alter the marketplace in favor of one business over another?
Shouldn’t the employees be the PRIMARY (and ONLY) reason for a living wage ordinance, rather than a SECONDARY one? Seems like Lamar and his supporters have it backwards.
Yes, the Davis store is owned by a Republican who lives in Sacramento and does diddly squat for Davis. But, more importantly, they sale ACE products and benefit from being part of huge national conmglomerate. Just like McDonalds’ franchises are owned by individuals, they are a chain and compete unfairly against mom and pop hamburger joints. If the Target store were “owned” by a local person would you feel any differently about Target? Why is ACE’s monopoly something people want to fight to protect? I don’t get it.
Anyway, shouldn’t a living wage ordinance be about doing what’s best for the employees, rather than trying to alter the marketplace in favor of one business over another?
Shouldn’t the employees be the PRIMARY (and ONLY) reason for a living wage ordinance, rather than a SECONDARY one? Seems like Lamar and his supporters have it backwards.
Yes, the Davis store is owned by a Republican who lives in Sacramento and does diddly squat for Davis. But, more importantly, they sale ACE products and benefit from being part of huge national conmglomerate. Just like McDonalds’ franchises are owned by individuals, they are a chain and compete unfairly against mom and pop hamburger joints. If the Target store were “owned” by a local person would you feel any differently about Target? Why is ACE’s monopoly something people want to fight to protect? I don’t get it.
Anyway, shouldn’t a living wage ordinance be about doing what’s best for the employees, rather than trying to alter the marketplace in favor of one business over another?
Shouldn’t the employees be the PRIMARY (and ONLY) reason for a living wage ordinance, rather than a SECONDARY one? Seems like Lamar and his supporters have it backwards.
Small businesses survive if they differentiate themselves….with better products and service etc. Big box guys try to provide value products. Small businesses will not be helped to survive by forcing big businesses to pay more because consumers need and want different types of products. If Target, Walmart, Starbucks choose not to locate in Davis because of non competitive or uneconomic circumstances similar to the Eastern Bloc, then those people of Davis who need/want value products will simply drive to Woodland or Vacaville or Sacramento (polluting the air and using more gas and oil), and those that want what local merchants offer will pay higher prices for better products/service to local guys in Davis.
If Lamar was successful in running off the big box guys, then the landlords of downtown Davis will be thankful to you, since they’ll be able to raise their rents because of the lack of big box competition. And, the citizens of Davis needing value products will use more oil/gas and pollute the environment more.
Small businesses survive if they differentiate themselves….with better products and service etc. Big box guys try to provide value products. Small businesses will not be helped to survive by forcing big businesses to pay more because consumers need and want different types of products. If Target, Walmart, Starbucks choose not to locate in Davis because of non competitive or uneconomic circumstances similar to the Eastern Bloc, then those people of Davis who need/want value products will simply drive to Woodland or Vacaville or Sacramento (polluting the air and using more gas and oil), and those that want what local merchants offer will pay higher prices for better products/service to local guys in Davis.
If Lamar was successful in running off the big box guys, then the landlords of downtown Davis will be thankful to you, since they’ll be able to raise their rents because of the lack of big box competition. And, the citizens of Davis needing value products will use more oil/gas and pollute the environment more.
Small businesses survive if they differentiate themselves….with better products and service etc. Big box guys try to provide value products. Small businesses will not be helped to survive by forcing big businesses to pay more because consumers need and want different types of products. If Target, Walmart, Starbucks choose not to locate in Davis because of non competitive or uneconomic circumstances similar to the Eastern Bloc, then those people of Davis who need/want value products will simply drive to Woodland or Vacaville or Sacramento (polluting the air and using more gas and oil), and those that want what local merchants offer will pay higher prices for better products/service to local guys in Davis.
If Lamar was successful in running off the big box guys, then the landlords of downtown Davis will be thankful to you, since they’ll be able to raise their rents because of the lack of big box competition. And, the citizens of Davis needing value products will use more oil/gas and pollute the environment more.
Small businesses survive if they differentiate themselves….with better products and service etc. Big box guys try to provide value products. Small businesses will not be helped to survive by forcing big businesses to pay more because consumers need and want different types of products. If Target, Walmart, Starbucks choose not to locate in Davis because of non competitive or uneconomic circumstances similar to the Eastern Bloc, then those people of Davis who need/want value products will simply drive to Woodland or Vacaville or Sacramento (polluting the air and using more gas and oil), and those that want what local merchants offer will pay higher prices for better products/service to local guys in Davis.
If Lamar was successful in running off the big box guys, then the landlords of downtown Davis will be thankful to you, since they’ll be able to raise their rents because of the lack of big box competition. And, the citizens of Davis needing value products will use more oil/gas and pollute the environment more.
“Yes, the Davis store is owned by a Republican who lives in Sacramento and does diddly squat for Davis. But, more importantly, they sale ACE products and benefit from being part of huge national conmglomerate.”
I don’t know how you presume to know where the owners of Davis Ace live or what their party affiliations are. The owners are active locally in business and service organizations and have done a great deal for the community.
Again, Ace is NOT a chain. It is a members’ coop with its own brands and product lines, and which does marketing for its members.
“Yes, the Davis store is owned by a Republican who lives in Sacramento and does diddly squat for Davis. But, more importantly, they sale ACE products and benefit from being part of huge national conmglomerate.”
I don’t know how you presume to know where the owners of Davis Ace live or what their party affiliations are. The owners are active locally in business and service organizations and have done a great deal for the community.
Again, Ace is NOT a chain. It is a members’ coop with its own brands and product lines, and which does marketing for its members.
“Yes, the Davis store is owned by a Republican who lives in Sacramento and does diddly squat for Davis. But, more importantly, they sale ACE products and benefit from being part of huge national conmglomerate.”
I don’t know how you presume to know where the owners of Davis Ace live or what their party affiliations are. The owners are active locally in business and service organizations and have done a great deal for the community.
Again, Ace is NOT a chain. It is a members’ coop with its own brands and product lines, and which does marketing for its members.
“Yes, the Davis store is owned by a Republican who lives in Sacramento and does diddly squat for Davis. But, more importantly, they sale ACE products and benefit from being part of huge national conmglomerate.”
I don’t know how you presume to know where the owners of Davis Ace live or what their party affiliations are. The owners are active locally in business and service organizations and have done a great deal for the community.
Again, Ace is NOT a chain. It is a members’ coop with its own brands and product lines, and which does marketing for its members.
If you missed my Enterprise column which Lamar refered to here, on why the EITC is a good economic idea and the living wage is a bad one, send me an email and I’d be happy to attach a copy of that column.
——
Is it just me, or does it seem like Target has, despite its election victory, decided not to build a store in East Mace Ranch?
If you missed my Enterprise column which Lamar refered to here, on why the EITC is a good economic idea and the living wage is a bad one, send me an email and I’d be happy to attach a copy of that column.
——
Is it just me, or does it seem like Target has, despite its election victory, decided not to build a store in East Mace Ranch?
If you missed my Enterprise column which Lamar refered to here, on why the EITC is a good economic idea and the living wage is a bad one, send me an email and I’d be happy to attach a copy of that column.
——
Is it just me, or does it seem like Target has, despite its election victory, decided not to build a store in East Mace Ranch?
If you missed my Enterprise column which Lamar refered to here, on why the EITC is a good economic idea and the living wage is a bad one, send me an email and I’d be happy to attach a copy of that column.
——
Is it just me, or does it seem like Target has, despite its election victory, decided not to build a store in East Mace Ranch?
Don,
Sorry, but ACE Hardware, Inc. is not a “cooperative” in the sense that most people understand it. It is not a consumer cooperative such as REI. It is a huge corporation where the franchise owners have stake in the profits and some say in how the corporation is run, just as stockholders have a say in capital stock corporations.
According to the ACE website (which never mentions the word cooperative) Ace has “more than 5,000 stores in 60 countries, Ace is the largest hardware store franchise in the world.”
The idea that ACE is not a “chain” is absurd. Just as crazy as saying that McDonald’s is not a chain because individuals own franchises.
Ace’s success is based on it’s hugeness, the same economies of scale that benefit Target. Yes it’s a different corporate structure, but fundamentally not that differen when it comes to market advantage or their ability to underpay workers.
I still don’t understand why it’s OK to exploit Starbuck’s workers but not Target workers.
Don,
Sorry, but ACE Hardware, Inc. is not a “cooperative” in the sense that most people understand it. It is not a consumer cooperative such as REI. It is a huge corporation where the franchise owners have stake in the profits and some say in how the corporation is run, just as stockholders have a say in capital stock corporations.
According to the ACE website (which never mentions the word cooperative) Ace has “more than 5,000 stores in 60 countries, Ace is the largest hardware store franchise in the world.”
The idea that ACE is not a “chain” is absurd. Just as crazy as saying that McDonald’s is not a chain because individuals own franchises.
Ace’s success is based on it’s hugeness, the same economies of scale that benefit Target. Yes it’s a different corporate structure, but fundamentally not that differen when it comes to market advantage or their ability to underpay workers.
I still don’t understand why it’s OK to exploit Starbuck’s workers but not Target workers.
Don,
Sorry, but ACE Hardware, Inc. is not a “cooperative” in the sense that most people understand it. It is not a consumer cooperative such as REI. It is a huge corporation where the franchise owners have stake in the profits and some say in how the corporation is run, just as stockholders have a say in capital stock corporations.
According to the ACE website (which never mentions the word cooperative) Ace has “more than 5,000 stores in 60 countries, Ace is the largest hardware store franchise in the world.”
The idea that ACE is not a “chain” is absurd. Just as crazy as saying that McDonald’s is not a chain because individuals own franchises.
Ace’s success is based on it’s hugeness, the same economies of scale that benefit Target. Yes it’s a different corporate structure, but fundamentally not that differen when it comes to market advantage or their ability to underpay workers.
I still don’t understand why it’s OK to exploit Starbuck’s workers but not Target workers.
Don,
Sorry, but ACE Hardware, Inc. is not a “cooperative” in the sense that most people understand it. It is not a consumer cooperative such as REI. It is a huge corporation where the franchise owners have stake in the profits and some say in how the corporation is run, just as stockholders have a say in capital stock corporations.
According to the ACE website (which never mentions the word cooperative) Ace has “more than 5,000 stores in 60 countries, Ace is the largest hardware store franchise in the world.”
The idea that ACE is not a “chain” is absurd. Just as crazy as saying that McDonald’s is not a chain because individuals own franchises.
Ace’s success is based on it’s hugeness, the same economies of scale that benefit Target. Yes it’s a different corporate structure, but fundamentally not that differen when it comes to market advantage or their ability to underpay workers.
I still don’t understand why it’s OK to exploit Starbuck’s workers but not Target workers.
Rich: Sue Greenwald announced last week that Target had just closed escrot on that property.
Rich: Sue Greenwald announced last week that Target had just closed escrot on that property.
Rich: Sue Greenwald announced last week that Target had just closed escrot on that property.
Rich: Sue Greenwald announced last week that Target had just closed escrot on that property.
From DavisAce.com:
Davis Lumber Company was formed on October 1, 1907 and incorporated on February 24, 1922. In the year 1937 the Anderson family took existing stock from their own hardware store, located on the west side of G Street, and exchanged their business for common stock in the Davis Lumber Company. From that point on the Andersons have been instrumental in the growth of the company. On June 22, 1962, Donald, Dora and Essie Anderson purchased the Davis Lumber Company.
Davis Lumber & Hardware
In 1966, Davis Lumber Company joined into the Ace Hardware Co-operative in order to meet the needs of their customers. In 1999, the store changed its name to Davis Ace, naming their buildings Ace Housewares, Ace Hardware, Ace Garden & Pet, and Ace Rock & Rental. Jennifer Anderson, daughter of Dora and Don Anderson, is the president.
From DavisAce.com:
Davis Lumber Company was formed on October 1, 1907 and incorporated on February 24, 1922. In the year 1937 the Anderson family took existing stock from their own hardware store, located on the west side of G Street, and exchanged their business for common stock in the Davis Lumber Company. From that point on the Andersons have been instrumental in the growth of the company. On June 22, 1962, Donald, Dora and Essie Anderson purchased the Davis Lumber Company.
Davis Lumber & Hardware
In 1966, Davis Lumber Company joined into the Ace Hardware Co-operative in order to meet the needs of their customers. In 1999, the store changed its name to Davis Ace, naming their buildings Ace Housewares, Ace Hardware, Ace Garden & Pet, and Ace Rock & Rental. Jennifer Anderson, daughter of Dora and Don Anderson, is the president.
From DavisAce.com:
Davis Lumber Company was formed on October 1, 1907 and incorporated on February 24, 1922. In the year 1937 the Anderson family took existing stock from their own hardware store, located on the west side of G Street, and exchanged their business for common stock in the Davis Lumber Company. From that point on the Andersons have been instrumental in the growth of the company. On June 22, 1962, Donald, Dora and Essie Anderson purchased the Davis Lumber Company.
Davis Lumber & Hardware
In 1966, Davis Lumber Company joined into the Ace Hardware Co-operative in order to meet the needs of their customers. In 1999, the store changed its name to Davis Ace, naming their buildings Ace Housewares, Ace Hardware, Ace Garden & Pet, and Ace Rock & Rental. Jennifer Anderson, daughter of Dora and Don Anderson, is the president.
From DavisAce.com:
Davis Lumber Company was formed on October 1, 1907 and incorporated on February 24, 1922. In the year 1937 the Anderson family took existing stock from their own hardware store, located on the west side of G Street, and exchanged their business for common stock in the Davis Lumber Company. From that point on the Andersons have been instrumental in the growth of the company. On June 22, 1962, Donald, Dora and Essie Anderson purchased the Davis Lumber Company.
Davis Lumber & Hardware
In 1966, Davis Lumber Company joined into the Ace Hardware Co-operative in order to meet the needs of their customers. In 1999, the store changed its name to Davis Ace, naming their buildings Ace Housewares, Ace Hardware, Ace Garden & Pet, and Ace Rock & Rental. Jennifer Anderson, daughter of Dora and Don Anderson, is the president.
Jennifer Anderson’s father used to own a Cessna Centurian. I maintained and inspected it for him as I was starting UCD here, and sometimes I washed and waxed it. I remember him as a kind, loving, and generous man who supported young people to better themselves. Assuming his family carries on in the same tradition at the lumber company, I would say working in such a great local company has to be considered a terrific job for those students who are learning retail, contracting, etc. Mike Harrington, Airframe and Powerplant Certified Mechanic; former Authorized Inspector, FAA; pilot
Jennifer Anderson’s father used to own a Cessna Centurian. I maintained and inspected it for him as I was starting UCD here, and sometimes I washed and waxed it. I remember him as a kind, loving, and generous man who supported young people to better themselves. Assuming his family carries on in the same tradition at the lumber company, I would say working in such a great local company has to be considered a terrific job for those students who are learning retail, contracting, etc. Mike Harrington, Airframe and Powerplant Certified Mechanic; former Authorized Inspector, FAA; pilot
Jennifer Anderson’s father used to own a Cessna Centurian. I maintained and inspected it for him as I was starting UCD here, and sometimes I washed and waxed it. I remember him as a kind, loving, and generous man who supported young people to better themselves. Assuming his family carries on in the same tradition at the lumber company, I would say working in such a great local company has to be considered a terrific job for those students who are learning retail, contracting, etc. Mike Harrington, Airframe and Powerplant Certified Mechanic; former Authorized Inspector, FAA; pilot
Jennifer Anderson’s father used to own a Cessna Centurian. I maintained and inspected it for him as I was starting UCD here, and sometimes I washed and waxed it. I remember him as a kind, loving, and generous man who supported young people to better themselves. Assuming his family carries on in the same tradition at the lumber company, I would say working in such a great local company has to be considered a terrific job for those students who are learning retail, contracting, etc. Mike Harrington, Airframe and Powerplant Certified Mechanic; former Authorized Inspector, FAA; pilot
I thought that the original concept was based primarily upon the actual size of the Big Box operation in Davis rather than its corporate structure,the reasoning being that at a certain scale and potential volume of retail business, our local businesses would not be able to compete. Starbucks would not be considered a Big Box operation in that regard.
I thought that the original concept was based primarily upon the actual size of the Big Box operation in Davis rather than its corporate structure,the reasoning being that at a certain scale and potential volume of retail business, our local businesses would not be able to compete. Starbucks would not be considered a Big Box operation in that regard.
I thought that the original concept was based primarily upon the actual size of the Big Box operation in Davis rather than its corporate structure,the reasoning being that at a certain scale and potential volume of retail business, our local businesses would not be able to compete. Starbucks would not be considered a Big Box operation in that regard.
I thought that the original concept was based primarily upon the actual size of the Big Box operation in Davis rather than its corporate structure,the reasoning being that at a certain scale and potential volume of retail business, our local businesses would not be able to compete. Starbucks would not be considered a Big Box operation in that regard.
“I remember him as a kind, loving, and generous man who supported young people to better themselves. Assuming his family carries on in the same tradition at the lumber company, I would say working in such a great local company has to be considered a terrific job for those students who are learning retail, contracting, etc.”
I flew in the Anderson’s plane when I was a little kid, back in the late ’60s…. When my father died unexpectedly in 1971, Don Anderson (Jennifer’s father) contributed the bimah — the table behind which the rabbi stands in a service or ceremony — for the Jewish Congregation of Davis (now Bet Haverim) in my dad’s memory. (The Andersons are not Jewish. Don was just a kind person who was good to his friends.) That bimah, which is a beautiful piece of furniture, is still in use today.
Also, regardless of the nature of the Ace cooperative, the Andersons are likely the family in business in Davis with the longest history in our community. Don’s uncle, Gordon Anderson, was the founder of the original Bank of Davis, housed in the historic Anderson Bank Building at 2nd and G.
“I remember him as a kind, loving, and generous man who supported young people to better themselves. Assuming his family carries on in the same tradition at the lumber company, I would say working in such a great local company has to be considered a terrific job for those students who are learning retail, contracting, etc.”
I flew in the Anderson’s plane when I was a little kid, back in the late ’60s…. When my father died unexpectedly in 1971, Don Anderson (Jennifer’s father) contributed the bimah — the table behind which the rabbi stands in a service or ceremony — for the Jewish Congregation of Davis (now Bet Haverim) in my dad’s memory. (The Andersons are not Jewish. Don was just a kind person who was good to his friends.) That bimah, which is a beautiful piece of furniture, is still in use today.
Also, regardless of the nature of the Ace cooperative, the Andersons are likely the family in business in Davis with the longest history in our community. Don’s uncle, Gordon Anderson, was the founder of the original Bank of Davis, housed in the historic Anderson Bank Building at 2nd and G.
“I remember him as a kind, loving, and generous man who supported young people to better themselves. Assuming his family carries on in the same tradition at the lumber company, I would say working in such a great local company has to be considered a terrific job for those students who are learning retail, contracting, etc.”
I flew in the Anderson’s plane when I was a little kid, back in the late ’60s…. When my father died unexpectedly in 1971, Don Anderson (Jennifer’s father) contributed the bimah — the table behind which the rabbi stands in a service or ceremony — for the Jewish Congregation of Davis (now Bet Haverim) in my dad’s memory. (The Andersons are not Jewish. Don was just a kind person who was good to his friends.) That bimah, which is a beautiful piece of furniture, is still in use today.
Also, regardless of the nature of the Ace cooperative, the Andersons are likely the family in business in Davis with the longest history in our community. Don’s uncle, Gordon Anderson, was the founder of the original Bank of Davis, housed in the historic Anderson Bank Building at 2nd and G.
“I remember him as a kind, loving, and generous man who supported young people to better themselves. Assuming his family carries on in the same tradition at the lumber company, I would say working in such a great local company has to be considered a terrific job for those students who are learning retail, contracting, etc.”
I flew in the Anderson’s plane when I was a little kid, back in the late ’60s…. When my father died unexpectedly in 1971, Don Anderson (Jennifer’s father) contributed the bimah — the table behind which the rabbi stands in a service or ceremony — for the Jewish Congregation of Davis (now Bet Haverim) in my dad’s memory. (The Andersons are not Jewish. Don was just a kind person who was good to his friends.) That bimah, which is a beautiful piece of furniture, is still in use today.
Also, regardless of the nature of the Ace cooperative, the Andersons are likely the family in business in Davis with the longest history in our community. Don’s uncle, Gordon Anderson, was the founder of the original Bank of Davis, housed in the historic Anderson Bank Building at 2nd and G.
Anonymous 8:21am said:
They can then lease or sell to Wal-Mart and Davis will have little to say about it as long as they meet the zoning…
If you think that Target would ever provide a prime retail spot to Walmart, then you really don’t understand the competitive aspects between those two companies. Target may or may not build here, but if Target actually owns/controls this site, Walmart will NEVER be located in this spot. Lowes – maybe, but never Walmart (or Sears/kmart for that matter). Whatever money Target might make from selling or leasing would pale in comparison to their need/desire to control markets.
Anonymous 8:21am said:
They can then lease or sell to Wal-Mart and Davis will have little to say about it as long as they meet the zoning…
If you think that Target would ever provide a prime retail spot to Walmart, then you really don’t understand the competitive aspects between those two companies. Target may or may not build here, but if Target actually owns/controls this site, Walmart will NEVER be located in this spot. Lowes – maybe, but never Walmart (or Sears/kmart for that matter). Whatever money Target might make from selling or leasing would pale in comparison to their need/desire to control markets.
Anonymous 8:21am said:
They can then lease or sell to Wal-Mart and Davis will have little to say about it as long as they meet the zoning…
If you think that Target would ever provide a prime retail spot to Walmart, then you really don’t understand the competitive aspects between those two companies. Target may or may not build here, but if Target actually owns/controls this site, Walmart will NEVER be located in this spot. Lowes – maybe, but never Walmart (or Sears/kmart for that matter). Whatever money Target might make from selling or leasing would pale in comparison to their need/desire to control markets.
Anonymous 8:21am said:
They can then lease or sell to Wal-Mart and Davis will have little to say about it as long as they meet the zoning…
If you think that Target would ever provide a prime retail spot to Walmart, then you really don’t understand the competitive aspects between those two companies. Target may or may not build here, but if Target actually owns/controls this site, Walmart will NEVER be located in this spot. Lowes – maybe, but never Walmart (or Sears/kmart for that matter). Whatever money Target might make from selling or leasing would pale in comparison to their need/desire to control markets.
a good point. while you’re at it, have you thought about looking into addressing the impact of rising rental rates on local downtown businesses? i’m seeing a ton of closed shopwindows downtown, and i wonder if rent is part of the equation. not sure how we’d make that better, but i’ll toss it out there as a thought.
keep pushing on the wages, lamar.
a good point. while you’re at it, have you thought about looking into addressing the impact of rising rental rates on local downtown businesses? i’m seeing a ton of closed shopwindows downtown, and i wonder if rent is part of the equation. not sure how we’d make that better, but i’ll toss it out there as a thought.
keep pushing on the wages, lamar.
a good point. while you’re at it, have you thought about looking into addressing the impact of rising rental rates on local downtown businesses? i’m seeing a ton of closed shopwindows downtown, and i wonder if rent is part of the equation. not sure how we’d make that better, but i’ll toss it out there as a thought.
keep pushing on the wages, lamar.
a good point. while you’re at it, have you thought about looking into addressing the impact of rising rental rates on local downtown businesses? i’m seeing a ton of closed shopwindows downtown, and i wonder if rent is part of the equation. not sure how we’d make that better, but i’ll toss it out there as a thought.
keep pushing on the wages, lamar.
Pound for pound or on a dollar basis local businesses give more back to our community in civic participation, donations, sponsors and employment than big box stores. Without retailer owned cooperatives like ACE many locally owned businesses would be out of business. Retailer owned cooperatives give locally owned retailers like Nugget, the Davis Food Co-op and Davis AC the power to compete against non locally owned chains. Retailer owned Co-ops are the business behind the small business on America’s Main Street. Small business co-ops are an important element in providing balance in the market place.
Pound for pound or on a dollar basis local businesses give more back to our community in civic participation, donations, sponsors and employment than big box stores. Without retailer owned cooperatives like ACE many locally owned businesses would be out of business. Retailer owned cooperatives give locally owned retailers like Nugget, the Davis Food Co-op and Davis AC the power to compete against non locally owned chains. Retailer owned Co-ops are the business behind the small business on America’s Main Street. Small business co-ops are an important element in providing balance in the market place.
Pound for pound or on a dollar basis local businesses give more back to our community in civic participation, donations, sponsors and employment than big box stores. Without retailer owned cooperatives like ACE many locally owned businesses would be out of business. Retailer owned cooperatives give locally owned retailers like Nugget, the Davis Food Co-op and Davis AC the power to compete against non locally owned chains. Retailer owned Co-ops are the business behind the small business on America’s Main Street. Small business co-ops are an important element in providing balance in the market place.
Pound for pound or on a dollar basis local businesses give more back to our community in civic participation, donations, sponsors and employment than big box stores. Without retailer owned cooperatives like ACE many locally owned businesses would be out of business. Retailer owned cooperatives give locally owned retailers like Nugget, the Davis Food Co-op and Davis AC the power to compete against non locally owned chains. Retailer owned Co-ops are the business behind the small business on America’s Main Street. Small business co-ops are an important element in providing balance in the market place.
1.) To Richard who commented on conservatives and the elimination of the EITC: Republicans have long supported the EITC – Ford created it, and Reagan greatly expanded it. In fact, the only president who hasn’t expanded it was Carter, a democrat. You should get your facts straight before you spout rhetoric.
2.) Ace, being owned locally, is far different from a typical big box – profits stay in the community rather than go back to headquarters.
3.) Has there been any study to suggest that Davis needs a living wage? I don’t know of any, but would love to see it if one exists. Without such a study, I’m not really sure why people are arguing for the need to establish a living wage…besides, if a living wage means being able to afford housing in the community, businesses would have to pay people well over $20 an hour…which means bye-bye to all local businesses because no one would shop in town.
1.) To Richard who commented on conservatives and the elimination of the EITC: Republicans have long supported the EITC – Ford created it, and Reagan greatly expanded it. In fact, the only president who hasn’t expanded it was Carter, a democrat. You should get your facts straight before you spout rhetoric.
2.) Ace, being owned locally, is far different from a typical big box – profits stay in the community rather than go back to headquarters.
3.) Has there been any study to suggest that Davis needs a living wage? I don’t know of any, but would love to see it if one exists. Without such a study, I’m not really sure why people are arguing for the need to establish a living wage…besides, if a living wage means being able to afford housing in the community, businesses would have to pay people well over $20 an hour…which means bye-bye to all local businesses because no one would shop in town.
1.) To Richard who commented on conservatives and the elimination of the EITC: Republicans have long supported the EITC – Ford created it, and Reagan greatly expanded it. In fact, the only president who hasn’t expanded it was Carter, a democrat. You should get your facts straight before you spout rhetoric.
2.) Ace, being owned locally, is far different from a typical big box – profits stay in the community rather than go back to headquarters.
3.) Has there been any study to suggest that Davis needs a living wage? I don’t know of any, but would love to see it if one exists. Without such a study, I’m not really sure why people are arguing for the need to establish a living wage…besides, if a living wage means being able to afford housing in the community, businesses would have to pay people well over $20 an hour…which means bye-bye to all local businesses because no one would shop in town.
1.) To Richard who commented on conservatives and the elimination of the EITC: Republicans have long supported the EITC – Ford created it, and Reagan greatly expanded it. In fact, the only president who hasn’t expanded it was Carter, a democrat. You should get your facts straight before you spout rhetoric.
2.) Ace, being owned locally, is far different from a typical big box – profits stay in the community rather than go back to headquarters.
3.) Has there been any study to suggest that Davis needs a living wage? I don’t know of any, but would love to see it if one exists. Without such a study, I’m not really sure why people are arguing for the need to establish a living wage…besides, if a living wage means being able to afford housing in the community, businesses would have to pay people well over $20 an hour…which means bye-bye to all local businesses because no one would shop in town.
It’s clear from this discussion that Heystek’s proposed liveable wage ordinance has NOTHING to do with helping workers but is simply an attack on Target. That is why it has no credibility and no chance of ever being adopted.
It’s clear from this discussion that Heystek’s proposed liveable wage ordinance has NOTHING to do with helping workers but is simply an attack on Target. That is why it has no credibility and no chance of ever being adopted.
It’s clear from this discussion that Heystek’s proposed liveable wage ordinance has NOTHING to do with helping workers but is simply an attack on Target. That is why it has no credibility and no chance of ever being adopted.
It’s clear from this discussion that Heystek’s proposed liveable wage ordinance has NOTHING to do with helping workers but is simply an attack on Target. That is why it has no credibility and no chance of ever being adopted.
If a living wage is to be adopted it should be for all workers not just the ones certain people deem appropriate. Aren’t the workers that bust their butt for local businesses entitled to a living wage as well? As much as I would like to see local business owners thrive, given the choice I would work for Target or Wal-Mart if it meant being paid more for doing similar work. I don’t believe local owners pay their employees any more than they have to in order to keep things running and turn a profit at a level that is comfortable to them.
With the stand that Lamar has taken on behalf of labor I am surprised to see that he is in favor of rewarding workers of predatory “big box” stores at the expense of local business workers. That is not the intent, I am sure, but that’s the end result.
Davis Republican bought up a good point about a living wage for Davis residents being $20 or more. Wouldn’t it be ironic to get a living wage for Target in Davis as their workers commute to their homes elsewhere because they can’t afford to live here?
If a living wage is to be adopted it should be for all workers not just the ones certain people deem appropriate. Aren’t the workers that bust their butt for local businesses entitled to a living wage as well? As much as I would like to see local business owners thrive, given the choice I would work for Target or Wal-Mart if it meant being paid more for doing similar work. I don’t believe local owners pay their employees any more than they have to in order to keep things running and turn a profit at a level that is comfortable to them.
With the stand that Lamar has taken on behalf of labor I am surprised to see that he is in favor of rewarding workers of predatory “big box” stores at the expense of local business workers. That is not the intent, I am sure, but that’s the end result.
Davis Republican bought up a good point about a living wage for Davis residents being $20 or more. Wouldn’t it be ironic to get a living wage for Target in Davis as their workers commute to their homes elsewhere because they can’t afford to live here?
If a living wage is to be adopted it should be for all workers not just the ones certain people deem appropriate. Aren’t the workers that bust their butt for local businesses entitled to a living wage as well? As much as I would like to see local business owners thrive, given the choice I would work for Target or Wal-Mart if it meant being paid more for doing similar work. I don’t believe local owners pay their employees any more than they have to in order to keep things running and turn a profit at a level that is comfortable to them.
With the stand that Lamar has taken on behalf of labor I am surprised to see that he is in favor of rewarding workers of predatory “big box” stores at the expense of local business workers. That is not the intent, I am sure, but that’s the end result.
Davis Republican bought up a good point about a living wage for Davis residents being $20 or more. Wouldn’t it be ironic to get a living wage for Target in Davis as their workers commute to their homes elsewhere because they can’t afford to live here?
If a living wage is to be adopted it should be for all workers not just the ones certain people deem appropriate. Aren’t the workers that bust their butt for local businesses entitled to a living wage as well? As much as I would like to see local business owners thrive, given the choice I would work for Target or Wal-Mart if it meant being paid more for doing similar work. I don’t believe local owners pay their employees any more than they have to in order to keep things running and turn a profit at a level that is comfortable to them.
With the stand that Lamar has taken on behalf of labor I am surprised to see that he is in favor of rewarding workers of predatory “big box” stores at the expense of local business workers. That is not the intent, I am sure, but that’s the end result.
Davis Republican bought up a good point about a living wage for Davis residents being $20 or more. Wouldn’t it be ironic to get a living wage for Target in Davis as their workers commute to their homes elsewhere because they can’t afford to live here?
“if a living wage means being able to afford housing in the community, businesses would have to pay people well over $20 an hour…which means bye-bye to all local businesses because no one would shop in town.”
When we spoke about the issue last year, Lamar told me that his proposal was for a $10/hour wage, presumably adjusted up for inflation.
“Republicans have long supported the EITC – Ford created it, and Reagan greatly expanded it.”
Unfortunately, there has been opposition in Congress among a lot of parsimonious Republicans in recent years to expanding the EITC.
My own preference would be to get rid of all minimum (or maximum) wage laws and allow the market to set prices. Because I realize that there are many people who don’t have the skills to earn enough to live even a modest lifestyle, I believe we as a country ought to help them by providing a substantial wage subsidy, one which rewards work and does not discourage companies from hiring the less skilled.
What is clear, alas, is that people who call for things like mandated health insurance (purchased by employers) and mandated high wages (paid for by employers) and mandated workman’s compensation insurance (paid for by employers) and mandated social security tax contributions (paid for by employers) is that these things make it impossible to hire people who are not highly skilled (unless that hiring is done illegally, as often happens in our country). As such, in an effort to “help the poor,” the do-gooders are destroying the chances for most poor people to live a self-sufficient life or to ever get started in the legal work world.
“if a living wage means being able to afford housing in the community, businesses would have to pay people well over $20 an hour…which means bye-bye to all local businesses because no one would shop in town.”
When we spoke about the issue last year, Lamar told me that his proposal was for a $10/hour wage, presumably adjusted up for inflation.
“Republicans have long supported the EITC – Ford created it, and Reagan greatly expanded it.”
Unfortunately, there has been opposition in Congress among a lot of parsimonious Republicans in recent years to expanding the EITC.
My own preference would be to get rid of all minimum (or maximum) wage laws and allow the market to set prices. Because I realize that there are many people who don’t have the skills to earn enough to live even a modest lifestyle, I believe we as a country ought to help them by providing a substantial wage subsidy, one which rewards work and does not discourage companies from hiring the less skilled.
What is clear, alas, is that people who call for things like mandated health insurance (purchased by employers) and mandated high wages (paid for by employers) and mandated workman’s compensation insurance (paid for by employers) and mandated social security tax contributions (paid for by employers) is that these things make it impossible to hire people who are not highly skilled (unless that hiring is done illegally, as often happens in our country). As such, in an effort to “help the poor,” the do-gooders are destroying the chances for most poor people to live a self-sufficient life or to ever get started in the legal work world.
“if a living wage means being able to afford housing in the community, businesses would have to pay people well over $20 an hour…which means bye-bye to all local businesses because no one would shop in town.”
When we spoke about the issue last year, Lamar told me that his proposal was for a $10/hour wage, presumably adjusted up for inflation.
“Republicans have long supported the EITC – Ford created it, and Reagan greatly expanded it.”
Unfortunately, there has been opposition in Congress among a lot of parsimonious Republicans in recent years to expanding the EITC.
My own preference would be to get rid of all minimum (or maximum) wage laws and allow the market to set prices. Because I realize that there are many people who don’t have the skills to earn enough to live even a modest lifestyle, I believe we as a country ought to help them by providing a substantial wage subsidy, one which rewards work and does not discourage companies from hiring the less skilled.
What is clear, alas, is that people who call for things like mandated health insurance (purchased by employers) and mandated high wages (paid for by employers) and mandated workman’s compensation insurance (paid for by employers) and mandated social security tax contributions (paid for by employers) is that these things make it impossible to hire people who are not highly skilled (unless that hiring is done illegally, as often happens in our country). As such, in an effort to “help the poor,” the do-gooders are destroying the chances for most poor people to live a self-sufficient life or to ever get started in the legal work world.
“if a living wage means being able to afford housing in the community, businesses would have to pay people well over $20 an hour…which means bye-bye to all local businesses because no one would shop in town.”
When we spoke about the issue last year, Lamar told me that his proposal was for a $10/hour wage, presumably adjusted up for inflation.
“Republicans have long supported the EITC – Ford created it, and Reagan greatly expanded it.”
Unfortunately, there has been opposition in Congress among a lot of parsimonious Republicans in recent years to expanding the EITC.
My own preference would be to get rid of all minimum (or maximum) wage laws and allow the market to set prices. Because I realize that there are many people who don’t have the skills to earn enough to live even a modest lifestyle, I believe we as a country ought to help them by providing a substantial wage subsidy, one which rewards work and does not discourage companies from hiring the less skilled.
What is clear, alas, is that people who call for things like mandated health insurance (purchased by employers) and mandated high wages (paid for by employers) and mandated workman’s compensation insurance (paid for by employers) and mandated social security tax contributions (paid for by employers) is that these things make it impossible to hire people who are not highly skilled (unless that hiring is done illegally, as often happens in our country). As such, in an effort to “help the poor,” the do-gooders are destroying the chances for most poor people to live a self-sufficient life or to ever get started in the legal work world.
That’s an interesting point about doing away with the mandates, which are barriers to hiring, and expanding the EITC, or perhaps replacing it with a different type of subsidy system. Arguably, it would be an easier way, with less dead weight loss to the economy, to establish a minimum standard of living, which government has already really attempted to establish. Such a system would expand the working class, thereby potentially eliminating the growing permanent underclass.
That’s an interesting point about doing away with the mandates, which are barriers to hiring, and expanding the EITC, or perhaps replacing it with a different type of subsidy system. Arguably, it would be an easier way, with less dead weight loss to the economy, to establish a minimum standard of living, which government has already really attempted to establish. Such a system would expand the working class, thereby potentially eliminating the growing permanent underclass.
That’s an interesting point about doing away with the mandates, which are barriers to hiring, and expanding the EITC, or perhaps replacing it with a different type of subsidy system. Arguably, it would be an easier way, with less dead weight loss to the economy, to establish a minimum standard of living, which government has already really attempted to establish. Such a system would expand the working class, thereby potentially eliminating the growing permanent underclass.
That’s an interesting point about doing away with the mandates, which are barriers to hiring, and expanding the EITC, or perhaps replacing it with a different type of subsidy system. Arguably, it would be an easier way, with less dead weight loss to the economy, to establish a minimum standard of living, which government has already really attempted to establish. Such a system would expand the working class, thereby potentially eliminating the growing permanent underclass.
Also, $10 an hour = $20,800 a year, assuming 40 hrs/wk and 52 wks/yr. If the person spent no more than 1/3 of their salary on housing, they would only have $572 a month to spend on housing.
Also, $10 an hour = $20,800 a year, assuming 40 hrs/wk and 52 wks/yr. If the person spent no more than 1/3 of their salary on housing, they would only have $572 a month to spend on housing.
Also, $10 an hour = $20,800 a year, assuming 40 hrs/wk and 52 wks/yr. If the person spent no more than 1/3 of their salary on housing, they would only have $572 a month to spend on housing.
Also, $10 an hour = $20,800 a year, assuming 40 hrs/wk and 52 wks/yr. If the person spent no more than 1/3 of their salary on housing, they would only have $572 a month to spend on housing.
Does the living wage have a build in cost of living adjustment? It should.
Does the living wage have a build in cost of living adjustment? It should.
Does the living wage have a build in cost of living adjustment? It should.
Does the living wage have a build in cost of living adjustment? It should.
Santa Fe’s Living Wage and the Labor Market
http://www.epionline.org/study_detail.cfm?sid=90
In October, voters in Albuquerque, New Mexico will decide on a minimum wage of $7.50 an hour for all employees in the city. If passed, Albuquerque will become the fourth city in America to institute a wage floor above the federal level . The first city to do so was neighboring Santa Fe, New Mexico which implemented an $8.50 minimum wage in June, 2004.
This study, by Dr. Aaron Yelowitz of the University of Kentucky, utilizes government collected data to examine the labor market effects of Santa Fe’s living wage increase. Dr. Yelowitz finds that the living wage in Santa Fe significantly increased unemployment and decreased hours worked for those who were able to keep their job. Even more troubling, this research found that almost the entire negative effect of the living wage was concentrated on the city’s least-skilled and least-educated employees. These are the very individuals the living wage is purportedly helping.
While supporters of the living wage in Albuquerque have pointed to Santa Fe as a “success” story, a closer look at these claims finds that they are based on aggregate time series data, which makes no attempt to control for even the most basic economic factors. For example, living wage advocates point to an increase in overall employment in Santa Fe since the ordinance as “evidence” of success. This a faulty analysis that fails to control for factors such as overall economic growth in the state or a growing population. The importance of controlling for these factors is the very basis of credible economic analysis and one of the first things taught in any rudimentary statistics course.
In this analysis, Dr. Yelowitz utilizes an economic model that controls for both fixed effects (factors such as Santa Fe’s traditionally low unemployment rate and more vibrant economy) as well as time varying effects (such as overall employment growth). By constructing this careful model, Dr. Yelowitz is able to isolate the effect of the living wage ordinance from the confounding effects of other factors in the economy.
Utilizing United States Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey (CPS) microdata, Dr. Yelowitz found that Santa Fe’s living wage ordinance is responsible for a 3.2 percentage point increase in the city’s unemployment rate. While the aggregate unemployment rate for Santa Fe remains lower than many surrounding areas, this is because other factors serve to counteract a portion of the living wage ordinance’s negative effect on the job market. Examining the data further, Dr. Yelowitz found that nearly the entire negative effect in terms of unemployment was felt by Santa Fe’s least educated residents. Those with 12 years of education or fewer suffered an extremely large and negative effect, while those with 13 years of education or more felt virtually no statistically or economically significant effect.
These results should not be surprising. Economic research into the minimum wage has long found that the economy’s least-skilled and most vulnerable populations suffer the most under a minimum wage increase. As employers react to the higher wage floor they look for more skilled and productive employees or attempt to switch to automation where possible. Simultaneously, more skilled employees are enticed into these jobs by the higher wage rate (65 percent higher in this case). The end result is that the least skilled—people these ordinances are purportedly attempting to help—end up left out of the labor force.
For those that do keep their jobs, Dr. Yelowitz found that they end up working fewer hours than before. On the whole, the living wage ordinance reduced hours worked by 1.6 hours per week. Similar to the unemployment results, these hours reductions were felt most by the least-educated employees. Those with 12 years or fewer of education saw their hours reduced by 3.5 hours per week.
While aggregate time series data often masks the underlying dynamics of the labor market—specifically the potential effects of policies such as the living wage—if properly controlled for they can serve as important support for microdata results. Dr. Yelowitz constructed an aggregate time series model that used populations in other areas of New Mexico as control groups to account for factors other than the living wage that may have affected employment. Dr. Yelowitz found that the minimum wage increased the overall unemployment rate in Santa Fe by nearly 0.7 percentage points. This result is both statistically and economically significant. This increase amounts to a roughly 16 percent increase in the unemployment rate and the loss of approximately 540 jobs. This analysis only serves to support Dr. Yelowitz’s microdata results.
Overall, the results of this complete economic analysis show that the living wage in Santa Fe had an indisputable negative effect on the labor market. As a result of the increase in the wage floor, unemployment is significantly increased in the city and individuals who were able to keep their jobs are being forced to work fewer hours. Most troubling, though, is the fact that the least skilled employees are those who are being most hurt by this ordinance. Voters in other areas considering an increase in the minimum wage must consider these unintended consequences that end up hurting those who the law is supposed to help.
Santa Fe’s Living Wage and the Labor Market
http://www.epionline.org/study_detail.cfm?sid=90
In October, voters in Albuquerque, New Mexico will decide on a minimum wage of $7.50 an hour for all employees in the city. If passed, Albuquerque will become the fourth city in America to institute a wage floor above the federal level . The first city to do so was neighboring Santa Fe, New Mexico which implemented an $8.50 minimum wage in June, 2004.
This study, by Dr. Aaron Yelowitz of the University of Kentucky, utilizes government collected data to examine the labor market effects of Santa Fe’s living wage increase. Dr. Yelowitz finds that the living wage in Santa Fe significantly increased unemployment and decreased hours worked for those who were able to keep their job. Even more troubling, this research found that almost the entire negative effect of the living wage was concentrated on the city’s least-skilled and least-educated employees. These are the very individuals the living wage is purportedly helping.
While supporters of the living wage in Albuquerque have pointed to Santa Fe as a “success” story, a closer look at these claims finds that they are based on aggregate time series data, which makes no attempt to control for even the most basic economic factors. For example, living wage advocates point to an increase in overall employment in Santa Fe since the ordinance as “evidence” of success. This a faulty analysis that fails to control for factors such as overall economic growth in the state or a growing population. The importance of controlling for these factors is the very basis of credible economic analysis and one of the first things taught in any rudimentary statistics course.
In this analysis, Dr. Yelowitz utilizes an economic model that controls for both fixed effects (factors such as Santa Fe’s traditionally low unemployment rate and more vibrant economy) as well as time varying effects (such as overall employment growth). By constructing this careful model, Dr. Yelowitz is able to isolate the effect of the living wage ordinance from the confounding effects of other factors in the economy.
Utilizing United States Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey (CPS) microdata, Dr. Yelowitz found that Santa Fe’s living wage ordinance is responsible for a 3.2 percentage point increase in the city’s unemployment rate. While the aggregate unemployment rate for Santa Fe remains lower than many surrounding areas, this is because other factors serve to counteract a portion of the living wage ordinance’s negative effect on the job market. Examining the data further, Dr. Yelowitz found that nearly the entire negative effect in terms of unemployment was felt by Santa Fe’s least educated residents. Those with 12 years of education or fewer suffered an extremely large and negative effect, while those with 13 years of education or more felt virtually no statistically or economically significant effect.
These results should not be surprising. Economic research into the minimum wage has long found that the economy’s least-skilled and most vulnerable populations suffer the most under a minimum wage increase. As employers react to the higher wage floor they look for more skilled and productive employees or attempt to switch to automation where possible. Simultaneously, more skilled employees are enticed into these jobs by the higher wage rate (65 percent higher in this case). The end result is that the least skilled—people these ordinances are purportedly attempting to help—end up left out of the labor force.
For those that do keep their jobs, Dr. Yelowitz found that they end up working fewer hours than before. On the whole, the living wage ordinance reduced hours worked by 1.6 hours per week. Similar to the unemployment results, these hours reductions were felt most by the least-educated employees. Those with 12 years or fewer of education saw their hours reduced by 3.5 hours per week.
While aggregate time series data often masks the underlying dynamics of the labor market—specifically the potential effects of policies such as the living wage—if properly controlled for they can serve as important support for microdata results. Dr. Yelowitz constructed an aggregate time series model that used populations in other areas of New Mexico as control groups to account for factors other than the living wage that may have affected employment. Dr. Yelowitz found that the minimum wage increased the overall unemployment rate in Santa Fe by nearly 0.7 percentage points. This result is both statistically and economically significant. This increase amounts to a roughly 16 percent increase in the unemployment rate and the loss of approximately 540 jobs. This analysis only serves to support Dr. Yelowitz’s microdata results.
Overall, the results of this complete economic analysis show that the living wage in Santa Fe had an indisputable negative effect on the labor market. As a result of the increase in the wage floor, unemployment is significantly increased in the city and individuals who were able to keep their jobs are being forced to work fewer hours. Most troubling, though, is the fact that the least skilled employees are those who are being most hurt by this ordinance. Voters in other areas considering an increase in the minimum wage must consider these unintended consequences that end up hurting those who the law is supposed to help.
Santa Fe’s Living Wage and the Labor Market
http://www.epionline.org/study_detail.cfm?sid=90
In October, voters in Albuquerque, New Mexico will decide on a minimum wage of $7.50 an hour for all employees in the city. If passed, Albuquerque will become the fourth city in America to institute a wage floor above the federal level . The first city to do so was neighboring Santa Fe, New Mexico which implemented an $8.50 minimum wage in June, 2004.
This study, by Dr. Aaron Yelowitz of the University of Kentucky, utilizes government collected data to examine the labor market effects of Santa Fe’s living wage increase. Dr. Yelowitz finds that the living wage in Santa Fe significantly increased unemployment and decreased hours worked for those who were able to keep their job. Even more troubling, this research found that almost the entire negative effect of the living wage was concentrated on the city’s least-skilled and least-educated employees. These are the very individuals the living wage is purportedly helping.
While supporters of the living wage in Albuquerque have pointed to Santa Fe as a “success” story, a closer look at these claims finds that they are based on aggregate time series data, which makes no attempt to control for even the most basic economic factors. For example, living wage advocates point to an increase in overall employment in Santa Fe since the ordinance as “evidence” of success. This a faulty analysis that fails to control for factors such as overall economic growth in the state or a growing population. The importance of controlling for these factors is the very basis of credible economic analysis and one of the first things taught in any rudimentary statistics course.
In this analysis, Dr. Yelowitz utilizes an economic model that controls for both fixed effects (factors such as Santa Fe’s traditionally low unemployment rate and more vibrant economy) as well as time varying effects (such as overall employment growth). By constructing this careful model, Dr. Yelowitz is able to isolate the effect of the living wage ordinance from the confounding effects of other factors in the economy.
Utilizing United States Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey (CPS) microdata, Dr. Yelowitz found that Santa Fe’s living wage ordinance is responsible for a 3.2 percentage point increase in the city’s unemployment rate. While the aggregate unemployment rate for Santa Fe remains lower than many surrounding areas, this is because other factors serve to counteract a portion of the living wage ordinance’s negative effect on the job market. Examining the data further, Dr. Yelowitz found that nearly the entire negative effect in terms of unemployment was felt by Santa Fe’s least educated residents. Those with 12 years of education or fewer suffered an extremely large and negative effect, while those with 13 years of education or more felt virtually no statistically or economically significant effect.
These results should not be surprising. Economic research into the minimum wage has long found that the economy’s least-skilled and most vulnerable populations suffer the most under a minimum wage increase. As employers react to the higher wage floor they look for more skilled and productive employees or attempt to switch to automation where possible. Simultaneously, more skilled employees are enticed into these jobs by the higher wage rate (65 percent higher in this case). The end result is that the least skilled—people these ordinances are purportedly attempting to help—end up left out of the labor force.
For those that do keep their jobs, Dr. Yelowitz found that they end up working fewer hours than before. On the whole, the living wage ordinance reduced hours worked by 1.6 hours per week. Similar to the unemployment results, these hours reductions were felt most by the least-educated employees. Those with 12 years or fewer of education saw their hours reduced by 3.5 hours per week.
While aggregate time series data often masks the underlying dynamics of the labor market—specifically the potential effects of policies such as the living wage—if properly controlled for they can serve as important support for microdata results. Dr. Yelowitz constructed an aggregate time series model that used populations in other areas of New Mexico as control groups to account for factors other than the living wage that may have affected employment. Dr. Yelowitz found that the minimum wage increased the overall unemployment rate in Santa Fe by nearly 0.7 percentage points. This result is both statistically and economically significant. This increase amounts to a roughly 16 percent increase in the unemployment rate and the loss of approximately 540 jobs. This analysis only serves to support Dr. Yelowitz’s microdata results.
Overall, the results of this complete economic analysis show that the living wage in Santa Fe had an indisputable negative effect on the labor market. As a result of the increase in the wage floor, unemployment is significantly increased in the city and individuals who were able to keep their jobs are being forced to work fewer hours. Most troubling, though, is the fact that the least skilled employees are those who are being most hurt by this ordinance. Voters in other areas considering an increase in the minimum wage must consider these unintended consequences that end up hurting those who the law is supposed to help.
Santa Fe’s Living Wage and the Labor Market
http://www.epionline.org/study_detail.cfm?sid=90
In October, voters in Albuquerque, New Mexico will decide on a minimum wage of $7.50 an hour for all employees in the city. If passed, Albuquerque will become the fourth city in America to institute a wage floor above the federal level . The first city to do so was neighboring Santa Fe, New Mexico which implemented an $8.50 minimum wage in June, 2004.
This study, by Dr. Aaron Yelowitz of the University of Kentucky, utilizes government collected data to examine the labor market effects of Santa Fe’s living wage increase. Dr. Yelowitz finds that the living wage in Santa Fe significantly increased unemployment and decreased hours worked for those who were able to keep their job. Even more troubling, this research found that almost the entire negative effect of the living wage was concentrated on the city’s least-skilled and least-educated employees. These are the very individuals the living wage is purportedly helping.
While supporters of the living wage in Albuquerque have pointed to Santa Fe as a “success” story, a closer look at these claims finds that they are based on aggregate time series data, which makes no attempt to control for even the most basic economic factors. For example, living wage advocates point to an increase in overall employment in Santa Fe since the ordinance as “evidence” of success. This a faulty analysis that fails to control for factors such as overall economic growth in the state or a growing population. The importance of controlling for these factors is the very basis of credible economic analysis and one of the first things taught in any rudimentary statistics course.
In this analysis, Dr. Yelowitz utilizes an economic model that controls for both fixed effects (factors such as Santa Fe’s traditionally low unemployment rate and more vibrant economy) as well as time varying effects (such as overall employment growth). By constructing this careful model, Dr. Yelowitz is able to isolate the effect of the living wage ordinance from the confounding effects of other factors in the economy.
Utilizing United States Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey (CPS) microdata, Dr. Yelowitz found that Santa Fe’s living wage ordinance is responsible for a 3.2 percentage point increase in the city’s unemployment rate. While the aggregate unemployment rate for Santa Fe remains lower than many surrounding areas, this is because other factors serve to counteract a portion of the living wage ordinance’s negative effect on the job market. Examining the data further, Dr. Yelowitz found that nearly the entire negative effect in terms of unemployment was felt by Santa Fe’s least educated residents. Those with 12 years of education or fewer suffered an extremely large and negative effect, while those with 13 years of education or more felt virtually no statistically or economically significant effect.
These results should not be surprising. Economic research into the minimum wage has long found that the economy’s least-skilled and most vulnerable populations suffer the most under a minimum wage increase. As employers react to the higher wage floor they look for more skilled and productive employees or attempt to switch to automation where possible. Simultaneously, more skilled employees are enticed into these jobs by the higher wage rate (65 percent higher in this case). The end result is that the least skilled—people these ordinances are purportedly attempting to help—end up left out of the labor force.
For those that do keep their jobs, Dr. Yelowitz found that they end up working fewer hours than before. On the whole, the living wage ordinance reduced hours worked by 1.6 hours per week. Similar to the unemployment results, these hours reductions were felt most by the least-educated employees. Those with 12 years or fewer of education saw their hours reduced by 3.5 hours per week.
While aggregate time series data often masks the underlying dynamics of the labor market—specifically the potential effects of policies such as the living wage—if properly controlled for they can serve as important support for microdata results. Dr. Yelowitz constructed an aggregate time series model that used populations in other areas of New Mexico as control groups to account for factors other than the living wage that may have affected employment. Dr. Yelowitz found that the minimum wage increased the overall unemployment rate in Santa Fe by nearly 0.7 percentage points. This result is both statistically and economically significant. This increase amounts to a roughly 16 percent increase in the unemployment rate and the loss of approximately 540 jobs. This analysis only serves to support Dr. Yelowitz’s microdata results.
Overall, the results of this complete economic analysis show that the living wage in Santa Fe had an indisputable negative effect on the labor market. As a result of the increase in the wage floor, unemployment is significantly increased in the city and individuals who were able to keep their jobs are being forced to work fewer hours. Most troubling, though, is the fact that the least skilled employees are those who are being most hurt by this ordinance. Voters in other areas considering an increase in the minimum wage must consider these unintended consequences that end up hurting those who the law is supposed to help.
“Economic research into the minimum wage has long found that the economy’s least-skilled and most vulnerable populations suffer the most under a minimum wage increase.”
I quote from my Nov. 29, 2006 column opposing the living wage proposal in Davis:
“To anyone who has ever studied microeconomics, the answer is simple: artificial wage floors don’t help the poor. They tend, over time, to destroy jobs for low-skilled and entry level employees. And ironically, they mostly benefit workers who come from wealthier families.
It’s important to understand that more than 62 percent of all workers who make the minimum wage or close to it come from middle or high-income households. They are teenagers and secondary income earners, not primary breadwinners. Only 14.2 percent of minimum wage workers come from poor families.
An excellent study on the minimum wage was published in October. Its author, David Neumark, a professor of economics at UC Irvine, is America’s leading authority on this issue.
Professor Neumark summarized his conclusion thusly: “The evidence from a large body of existing research suggests that minimum wage increases do more harm than good.
“Minimum wages reduce employment of young and less-skilled workers. Minimum wages deliver no net benefits to poor or low-income families, and if anything make them worse off, increasing poverty.
“Finally, there is some evidence that minimum wages have longer-run adverse effects, lowering the acquisition of skills and therefore lowering wages and earnings even beyond the age when individuals are most directly affected by a higher minimum.”
“Economic research into the minimum wage has long found that the economy’s least-skilled and most vulnerable populations suffer the most under a minimum wage increase.”
I quote from my Nov. 29, 2006 column opposing the living wage proposal in Davis:
“To anyone who has ever studied microeconomics, the answer is simple: artificial wage floors don’t help the poor. They tend, over time, to destroy jobs for low-skilled and entry level employees. And ironically, they mostly benefit workers who come from wealthier families.
It’s important to understand that more than 62 percent of all workers who make the minimum wage or close to it come from middle or high-income households. They are teenagers and secondary income earners, not primary breadwinners. Only 14.2 percent of minimum wage workers come from poor families.
An excellent study on the minimum wage was published in October. Its author, David Neumark, a professor of economics at UC Irvine, is America’s leading authority on this issue.
Professor Neumark summarized his conclusion thusly: “The evidence from a large body of existing research suggests that minimum wage increases do more harm than good.
“Minimum wages reduce employment of young and less-skilled workers. Minimum wages deliver no net benefits to poor or low-income families, and if anything make them worse off, increasing poverty.
“Finally, there is some evidence that minimum wages have longer-run adverse effects, lowering the acquisition of skills and therefore lowering wages and earnings even beyond the age when individuals are most directly affected by a higher minimum.”
“Economic research into the minimum wage has long found that the economy’s least-skilled and most vulnerable populations suffer the most under a minimum wage increase.”
I quote from my Nov. 29, 2006 column opposing the living wage proposal in Davis:
“To anyone who has ever studied microeconomics, the answer is simple: artificial wage floors don’t help the poor. They tend, over time, to destroy jobs for low-skilled and entry level employees. And ironically, they mostly benefit workers who come from wealthier families.
It’s important to understand that more than 62 percent of all workers who make the minimum wage or close to it come from middle or high-income households. They are teenagers and secondary income earners, not primary breadwinners. Only 14.2 percent of minimum wage workers come from poor families.
An excellent study on the minimum wage was published in October. Its author, David Neumark, a professor of economics at UC Irvine, is America’s leading authority on this issue.
Professor Neumark summarized his conclusion thusly: “The evidence from a large body of existing research suggests that minimum wage increases do more harm than good.
“Minimum wages reduce employment of young and less-skilled workers. Minimum wages deliver no net benefits to poor or low-income families, and if anything make them worse off, increasing poverty.
“Finally, there is some evidence that minimum wages have longer-run adverse effects, lowering the acquisition of skills and therefore lowering wages and earnings even beyond the age when individuals are most directly affected by a higher minimum.”
“Economic research into the minimum wage has long found that the economy’s least-skilled and most vulnerable populations suffer the most under a minimum wage increase.”
I quote from my Nov. 29, 2006 column opposing the living wage proposal in Davis:
“To anyone who has ever studied microeconomics, the answer is simple: artificial wage floors don’t help the poor. They tend, over time, to destroy jobs for low-skilled and entry level employees. And ironically, they mostly benefit workers who come from wealthier families.
It’s important to understand that more than 62 percent of all workers who make the minimum wage or close to it come from middle or high-income households. They are teenagers and secondary income earners, not primary breadwinners. Only 14.2 percent of minimum wage workers come from poor families.
An excellent study on the minimum wage was published in October. Its author, David Neumark, a professor of economics at UC Irvine, is America’s leading authority on this issue.
Professor Neumark summarized his conclusion thusly: “The evidence from a large body of existing research suggests that minimum wage increases do more harm than good.
“Minimum wages reduce employment of young and less-skilled workers. Minimum wages deliver no net benefits to poor or low-income families, and if anything make them worse off, increasing poverty.
“Finally, there is some evidence that minimum wages have longer-run adverse effects, lowering the acquisition of skills and therefore lowering wages and earnings even beyond the age when individuals are most directly affected by a higher minimum.”
One thing I should add: most increases in the federal minimum wage in the last 20-25 years have had little or no negative impact, on the economy or on low-skilled workers. The reason for this is quite simple: the real dollar value of the federal minimum wage is still quite low, lower than it was in the early 1970s.
However, if the federal government, or any lower level of government, were to raise the real dollar minimum wage up to levels as high as or higher than it was during the Nixon years, the poor, less-skilled and all businesses which hire entry level or low-skilled employees would suffer. The result would be devastating for those who depend on those jobs to live.
One thing I should add: most increases in the federal minimum wage in the last 20-25 years have had little or no negative impact, on the economy or on low-skilled workers. The reason for this is quite simple: the real dollar value of the federal minimum wage is still quite low, lower than it was in the early 1970s.
However, if the federal government, or any lower level of government, were to raise the real dollar minimum wage up to levels as high as or higher than it was during the Nixon years, the poor, less-skilled and all businesses which hire entry level or low-skilled employees would suffer. The result would be devastating for those who depend on those jobs to live.
One thing I should add: most increases in the federal minimum wage in the last 20-25 years have had little or no negative impact, on the economy or on low-skilled workers. The reason for this is quite simple: the real dollar value of the federal minimum wage is still quite low, lower than it was in the early 1970s.
However, if the federal government, or any lower level of government, were to raise the real dollar minimum wage up to levels as high as or higher than it was during the Nixon years, the poor, less-skilled and all businesses which hire entry level or low-skilled employees would suffer. The result would be devastating for those who depend on those jobs to live.
One thing I should add: most increases in the federal minimum wage in the last 20-25 years have had little or no negative impact, on the economy or on low-skilled workers. The reason for this is quite simple: the real dollar value of the federal minimum wage is still quite low, lower than it was in the early 1970s.
However, if the federal government, or any lower level of government, were to raise the real dollar minimum wage up to levels as high as or higher than it was during the Nixon years, the poor, less-skilled and all businesses which hire entry level or low-skilled employees would suffer. The result would be devastating for those who depend on those jobs to live.
Don Shor and Rich Rifkin provided some great information related to the living wage theory. I am sure that there are articles out there that can refute the data in those two independent articles referenced by the aforementioned commenter’s. In our haste we sometimes harm the very people we are trying to help. I appreciate the ideas brought forth by those contributors.
I admire Lamar’s sincerity and I agree with him more now than ever when he speaks at the council meetings. Is it just me or did anyone else almost puke with his “cutesy” Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers intro to his article? Gag me with a forklift!
Don Shor and Rich Rifkin provided some great information related to the living wage theory. I am sure that there are articles out there that can refute the data in those two independent articles referenced by the aforementioned commenter’s. In our haste we sometimes harm the very people we are trying to help. I appreciate the ideas brought forth by those contributors.
I admire Lamar’s sincerity and I agree with him more now than ever when he speaks at the council meetings. Is it just me or did anyone else almost puke with his “cutesy” Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers intro to his article? Gag me with a forklift!
Don Shor and Rich Rifkin provided some great information related to the living wage theory. I am sure that there are articles out there that can refute the data in those two independent articles referenced by the aforementioned commenter’s. In our haste we sometimes harm the very people we are trying to help. I appreciate the ideas brought forth by those contributors.
I admire Lamar’s sincerity and I agree with him more now than ever when he speaks at the council meetings. Is it just me or did anyone else almost puke with his “cutesy” Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers intro to his article? Gag me with a forklift!
Don Shor and Rich Rifkin provided some great information related to the living wage theory. I am sure that there are articles out there that can refute the data in those two independent articles referenced by the aforementioned commenter’s. In our haste we sometimes harm the very people we are trying to help. I appreciate the ideas brought forth by those contributors.
I admire Lamar’s sincerity and I agree with him more now than ever when he speaks at the council meetings. Is it just me or did anyone else almost puke with his “cutesy” Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers intro to his article? Gag me with a forklift!
…and THEY argued that the slaves were better off in their servitude than if free men… Reagan’s voodoo economics also was statistically validated by these “experts” on economic theory.
…and THEY argued that the slaves were better off in their servitude than if free men… Reagan’s voodoo economics also was statistically validated by these “experts” on economic theory.
…and THEY argued that the slaves were better off in their servitude than if free men… Reagan’s voodoo economics also was statistically validated by these “experts” on economic theory.
…and THEY argued that the slaves were better off in their servitude than if free men… Reagan’s voodoo economics also was statistically validated by these “experts” on economic theory.
As I said there is probably other data to refute the information presented in the articles. There is no reason not to look at different points of view before making up your mind.
Do you always have to play the race card in your rebuttals? Your point was well stated without the freeman / slave ranting.
As I said there is probably other data to refute the information presented in the articles. There is no reason not to look at different points of view before making up your mind.
Do you always have to play the race card in your rebuttals? Your point was well stated without the freeman / slave ranting.
As I said there is probably other data to refute the information presented in the articles. There is no reason not to look at different points of view before making up your mind.
Do you always have to play the race card in your rebuttals? Your point was well stated without the freeman / slave ranting.
As I said there is probably other data to refute the information presented in the articles. There is no reason not to look at different points of view before making up your mind.
Do you always have to play the race card in your rebuttals? Your point was well stated without the freeman / slave ranting.
President Truman is said to have observed that when he lined up all the economic experts
who claimed to have the economic truth,”they all point in different directions”. There is no economic theory truth, only constructs for underlying social/political values. The truth is anything can “work” if the societal/political values support it.
President Truman is said to have observed that when he lined up all the economic experts
who claimed to have the economic truth,”they all point in different directions”. There is no economic theory truth, only constructs for underlying social/political values. The truth is anything can “work” if the societal/political values support it.
President Truman is said to have observed that when he lined up all the economic experts
who claimed to have the economic truth,”they all point in different directions”. There is no economic theory truth, only constructs for underlying social/political values. The truth is anything can “work” if the societal/political values support it.
President Truman is said to have observed that when he lined up all the economic experts
who claimed to have the economic truth,”they all point in different directions”. There is no economic theory truth, only constructs for underlying social/political values. The truth is anything can “work” if the societal/political values support it.
“The truth is anything can “work” if the societal/political values support it.”
Exactly. That’s how I got communism to work in my country.
“The truth is anything can “work” if the societal/political values support it.”
Exactly. That’s how I got communism to work in my country.
“The truth is anything can “work” if the societal/political values support it.”
Exactly. That’s how I got communism to work in my country.
“The truth is anything can “work” if the societal/political values support it.”
Exactly. That’s how I got communism to work in my country.
There is nothing in what I cited that is “economic truth.” It was simply an analysis of the impact of the local minimum wage (“living wage” is really a misnomer) enacted in Santa Fe.
But the analysis makes sense. There are winners and losers when you increase the minimum wage. The winners are existing employees, those with moderate job skills, and those who are trainable. The losers are entry-level workers, high school kids, and those who are less trainable.
As an employer I will work to keep my payroll costs proportional to my sales. If I am told I have to pay some employees more, I may reduce hours, may lay some off or reduce seasonal hiring, and certainly wouldn’t hire anyone of marginal value.
But that is all hypothetical. I haven’t seen the proposal Lamar is touting. The Santa Fe “living wage” applied to all businesses with 25 or more employees.
There is nothing in what I cited that is “economic truth.” It was simply an analysis of the impact of the local minimum wage (“living wage” is really a misnomer) enacted in Santa Fe.
But the analysis makes sense. There are winners and losers when you increase the minimum wage. The winners are existing employees, those with moderate job skills, and those who are trainable. The losers are entry-level workers, high school kids, and those who are less trainable.
As an employer I will work to keep my payroll costs proportional to my sales. If I am told I have to pay some employees more, I may reduce hours, may lay some off or reduce seasonal hiring, and certainly wouldn’t hire anyone of marginal value.
But that is all hypothetical. I haven’t seen the proposal Lamar is touting. The Santa Fe “living wage” applied to all businesses with 25 or more employees.
There is nothing in what I cited that is “economic truth.” It was simply an analysis of the impact of the local minimum wage (“living wage” is really a misnomer) enacted in Santa Fe.
But the analysis makes sense. There are winners and losers when you increase the minimum wage. The winners are existing employees, those with moderate job skills, and those who are trainable. The losers are entry-level workers, high school kids, and those who are less trainable.
As an employer I will work to keep my payroll costs proportional to my sales. If I am told I have to pay some employees more, I may reduce hours, may lay some off or reduce seasonal hiring, and certainly wouldn’t hire anyone of marginal value.
But that is all hypothetical. I haven’t seen the proposal Lamar is touting. The Santa Fe “living wage” applied to all businesses with 25 or more employees.
There is nothing in what I cited that is “economic truth.” It was simply an analysis of the impact of the local minimum wage (“living wage” is really a misnomer) enacted in Santa Fe.
But the analysis makes sense. There are winners and losers when you increase the minimum wage. The winners are existing employees, those with moderate job skills, and those who are trainable. The losers are entry-level workers, high school kids, and those who are less trainable.
As an employer I will work to keep my payroll costs proportional to my sales. If I am told I have to pay some employees more, I may reduce hours, may lay some off or reduce seasonal hiring, and certainly wouldn’t hire anyone of marginal value.
But that is all hypothetical. I haven’t seen the proposal Lamar is touting. The Santa Fe “living wage” applied to all businesses with 25 or more employees.
“As an employer I will work to keep my payroll costs proportional to my sales…”
Don would clearly not have been one who economically exploited the most vulnerable during the Great Depression but then, if he had been the norm, the Grapes of Wrath would not have been written. The single economic mantra drowning out all other voices for the past 25 years dreams of returning to the predatory free-market of our late 19th-early 20th century Gilded Age before the European flood of the disenfranchised and exploited washed up on our shores to change the political power structure of the USA.
“As an employer I will work to keep my payroll costs proportional to my sales…”
Don would clearly not have been one who economically exploited the most vulnerable during the Great Depression but then, if he had been the norm, the Grapes of Wrath would not have been written. The single economic mantra drowning out all other voices for the past 25 years dreams of returning to the predatory free-market of our late 19th-early 20th century Gilded Age before the European flood of the disenfranchised and exploited washed up on our shores to change the political power structure of the USA.
“As an employer I will work to keep my payroll costs proportional to my sales…”
Don would clearly not have been one who economically exploited the most vulnerable during the Great Depression but then, if he had been the norm, the Grapes of Wrath would not have been written. The single economic mantra drowning out all other voices for the past 25 years dreams of returning to the predatory free-market of our late 19th-early 20th century Gilded Age before the European flood of the disenfranchised and exploited washed up on our shores to change the political power structure of the USA.
“As an employer I will work to keep my payroll costs proportional to my sales…”
Don would clearly not have been one who economically exploited the most vulnerable during the Great Depression but then, if he had been the norm, the Grapes of Wrath would not have been written. The single economic mantra drowning out all other voices for the past 25 years dreams of returning to the predatory free-market of our late 19th-early 20th century Gilded Age before the European flood of the disenfranchised and exploited washed up on our shores to change the political power structure of the USA.
darnell said…
Is it just me or did anyone else almost puke with his “cutesy” Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers intro to his article? Gag me with a forklift!
It made my pretty persnickety pout purse.
darnell said…
Is it just me or did anyone else almost puke with his “cutesy” Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers intro to his article? Gag me with a forklift!
It made my pretty persnickety pout purse.
darnell said…
Is it just me or did anyone else almost puke with his “cutesy” Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers intro to his article? Gag me with a forklift!
It made my pretty persnickety pout purse.
darnell said…
Is it just me or did anyone else almost puke with his “cutesy” Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers intro to his article? Gag me with a forklift!
It made my pretty persnickety pout purse.
Anonymous 9:02. Please! Pout pursing is prohibited per provisions placed proportionately in public proclamations as provided by the pundit people pleading profusely! Doesn’t make any sense, but what the hey! At least we have a sense of humor.
Anonymous 9:02. Please! Pout pursing is prohibited per provisions placed proportionately in public proclamations as provided by the pundit people pleading profusely! Doesn’t make any sense, but what the hey! At least we have a sense of humor.
Anonymous 9:02. Please! Pout pursing is prohibited per provisions placed proportionately in public proclamations as provided by the pundit people pleading profusely! Doesn’t make any sense, but what the hey! At least we have a sense of humor.
Anonymous 9:02. Please! Pout pursing is prohibited per provisions placed proportionately in public proclamations as provided by the pundit people pleading profusely! Doesn’t make any sense, but what the hey! At least we have a sense of humor.