Steam telepítése
belépés
|
nyelv
简体中文 (egyszerűsített kínai)
繁體中文 (hagyományos kínai)
日本語 (japán)
한국어 (koreai)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bolgár)
Čeština (cseh)
Dansk (dán)
Deutsch (német)
English (angol)
Español - España (spanyolországi spanyol)
Español - Latinoamérica (latin-amerikai spanyol)
Ελληνικά (görög)
Français (francia)
Italiano (olasz)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonéz)
Nederlands (holland)
Norsk (norvég)
Polski (lengyel)
Português (portugáliai portugál)
Português - Brasil (brazíliai portugál)
Română (román)
Русский (orosz)
Suomi (finn)
Svenska (svéd)
Türkçe (török)
Tiếng Việt (vietnámi)
Українська (ukrán)
Fordítási probléma jelentése
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYrNxs6ikVY
too long didnt watch:
Pizza Hut drivers and employees sued Pizza Hut in a wage-and-hour class action law suit.
Please see Oregel v PacPizza LLC
https://www.law.com/therecorder/almID/1202728173392/
But, that is her stance.
"..."Just do the math—of course we have national minimum wages that we need to raise to a living wage, you're talking about $20, $25," she said. "Fine, but I have got to be focused on what California needs and what the affordability factor is when we calculate this wage."...
It's what she defended. This is her proposal for California workers and basing a National minimum wage on that. (AFAIK - Corrections welcomed)
So, for a forty-hour a week employee, full-time, that is a total of 2080 hours worked per years that they will be paid for.
According to her estimates, which she justifies by being a "small business owner" and wanting to "take care of her employees," those employees should be paid $50.00 per hour.
That comes up to yearly gross pay "needed" for California employees due to her standards of a living-wage to be $ 104,000 dollars.
That should be easy... She's saying a "living wage" necessary for Californian minimum wage is $104,000 a year due to the "affordability factor."
Here is her defending saying it: (Partial, hard to source a full debate clip. Anyone?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cby3yrAmsgk
Apologies for whatever channel that is, but it's the only decent clip in the debate I could find. If you have a better source, I'd appreciate a link.
So, just how is this "affordability factor" going to cope with everyone's costs increasing due to all labor in California earning $104,000 monies?
Some of that "affordability" deals with high-value living areas. Sure, it's more expensive to live in areas of high desirability. That's a given, right? Housing is limited, after all.
But, the person at the grocery store buying food may not actually live in a highly desirable area, but that grocery store may service those areas. BOTH the people living in the nice area and those living in the not-nice area are buying the same box of Snacky Smores ™ that must now be sold... at $25.00 per 20 oz box. (Given, of course, that many manufacturers and businesses across the country are involved in making that box appear on the shelf.)
Looks like the "affordability" cost just increased by a whole bunch, didn't it? For all people? Where does that cause the "affordability factor" to be recalculated in California?
Keep in mind - This minimum wage would apply to all businesses. That includes "small businesses." Anyone that hires someone, outside of a few specific instances and exceptions, will have to pay that person $50.00 an hour.
I am in favor of a "living wage" at "minimum wage" pay. HOWEVER, that wage must be able to be born by the market. If it can't, it is not a "living wage" that is practical and sustainable.
PS: No, I am not steeped in this California district lore. But, dumb is dumb and this proposal is grandstanding on the dumb trophy. Can you direct me to where she has a practical statement that reflects careful consideration of the market environment and how raising the minimum wage is a workable solution? Why wasn't the actual cost-of-living addressed and more practical measures suggested rather than just firing off a cannon at "living wage" estimates?
It's not that easy and it could also be destructive - Everyone is gonna move to the State that pays the highest, meaning other States may lose workers if they don't have a better wage, meaning they will raise their minimum wage, meaning everyone will move there, meaning costs will increase there, meaning wages will be demanded to be increased, meaning more people will want wages raised in their State, meaning other States will eventually raise wages to attract workers, meaning demand and costs will increase, meaning that the only people REALLY making bank are Moving Companies... :)
****************************************
There needs to be an agreed-upon bottom-line for everyone and I agree they need to be able to live on that. We don't need competition for minimum wages in each State given that it wouldn't be sustainable, IMO.
But, this has to be done without employers reducing employment and raising prices to levels that can't be afforded by those very same minimum-wage workers.
Minimum wage increase = businesses reduce their number of employees and raise prices = only the least-desirable employment options remain available, but cost of living increases even more = more reliance on public assistance = back to the same problem
That's why we need a "sustainable" minimum-wage that provides the broadest capability to be a living minimum wage. It may not cover everyone, living everywhere, but it should do an effective job for most. Every country is going to have indigent population. We don't live in Utopia and it's not Star Trek, yet.
OK, what facts mean that the dumb statement that was made was made by someone who is not dumb?
If she's not dumb, then... she's attempting to gain votes by purposefully appealing to dumb people! That's... Abusing Dumb People and I'm sure that's illegal! (Or, maybe it is illegal, but just not for politicians?)
You're just re-posting clickbait news without facts.
Why don't you post about Virginia, USA?
I don't post about Virginia politicians as they tend not to push stupid ideas like those on the left coast do.
Nobody cares about Virginia, USA. But if you post the word "california" people like you get triggered and have to re-post the latest mainstream lie containing the search word.
it's called click-bait.
and please, do you know how bad you look typing the phrase "left coast?"
It will lead massively to robots. I mean it will happen eventually but this kind of crap is sure a good way to cement it in,lock it up and throw away the key.