|
|
|
Uploaded: Tuesday, March 12, 2013, 8:51 AM
San Jose's minimum wage goes to $10 with downtown association liking it
Businesses once opposed now see new law as way to boost worker productivity, profits
|
San Jose's minimum wage officially rose to $10 an hour Monday and business people who once opposed it now see it as a way to boost worker productivity and profits, a business leader said.
"It's the classic making lemonade out of lemons," said Scott Knies, executive director of the San Jose Downtown Association at a news conference in downtown San Jose to announce a new promotion campaign in light of the wage hike.
The association last year joined other business groups speaking out against Measure D, a ballot proposition to raise the hourly minimum wage in the city from $8 to $10.
Measure D passed in November with almost 60 percent voter support and took effect Monday, giving full-time minimum wage workers about $250
extra income a month.
San Jose businesses now want to raise awareness with customers to spend their money in San Jose for ethical reasons and support a local economy
that pays low-wage employees more, Knies said.
"Businesses are a pragmatic sort," Knies said. "The law is in effect today. Whether or not you are for or against it you have to make the best of it."
After the election, Knies said the association worked with the South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council, a worker group that campaigned in favor of Measure D, to launch a local business promotion called "Earn 'n Spend in San Jose."
The promotion, which started Monday, involves installing signs in city businesses urging both minimum wage earners and business customers to
spend their money within San Jose versus other towns without a $10 minimum wage, he said.
Knies added, however, that retail, food service, hotel and movie theater owners have told him they will have to either increase prices or simply absorb the cost of the higher wages.
Some business people say they can't raise prices in order to compete so they will have to work more hours themselves to cut expenses, Knies said.
Other owners are reducing benefits for temporary workers and the hours employees work per shift, he said.
Ben Field, executive officer of the labor council, said that the higher minimum wage would give affected employees $70 million more per year in their pockets.
"Low-wage workers will be spending that money right here in San Jose," Field said. "It's like an economic stimulus package for the region.— Bay City News Service Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by Bill, a resident of the Avignon neighborhood, on Mar 12, 2013 at 6:48 pm The arguments made in favor of the minimum wage increase in the above article have to be some of the stupidest statements ever muttered. No business in San Jose is happy to be paying unskilled people $10 an hour in a slow economy. As a result of this idiotic mandate, businesses will hire less people and will pass added costs on to consumers by raising prices. The city should not interfere with market economics. Businesses are quite capable of setting their own wages to attract and maintain a work force.
|
|
Posted by Carl, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 12, 2013 at 8:13 pm If you can break free from watching Fox News, Bill, we'd love to hear how putting more money into the hands of working people is a bad idea. What are the 'stupid statements' to which you refer, and why are they stupid. You might try backing up with a stat or two, just for fun.
|
|
Posted by Dan, a resident of the Bridle Creek neighborhood, on Mar 12, 2013 at 9:05 pm Interesting...
1. Scott Knies, executive director of the San Jose Downtown Association.
2. South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council
3. Ben Field, executive officer of the labor council.
...not one of these individuals actually owns a business.
Funny that.
Dan
|
|
Posted by Carl, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 12, 2013 at 9:14 pm ... yeah, funny that! Because only someone who's on the take or doesn't own a business could actually see the justice in workers making a whopping $400 (gross) per week. With rents hovering above $1000 a month, who do these schmucks think they are earning that much? Next they'll want to buy a car to get to work.
|
|
Posted by Dan, a resident of the Bridle Creek neighborhood, on Mar 12, 2013 at 10:21 pm So "on the take" equals "own a business"?
Fancy that.
Keep going with that line of "thinking", Carl.
Dan
|
|
Posted by Carl, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 12, 2013 at 11:22 pm You might try re-reading my above comment. Read it v.e.r.y. slowly. Atta boy! BTW, shouldn't 6th graders be in bed by this time in the evening? And what about your homework, Dan? We don't want you to fail reading again this term.
|
|
Posted by Dan, a resident of the Bridle Creek neighborhood, on Mar 13, 2013 at 7:45 am No Carl, you might want to try "thinking" and maybe enroll in a Econ101 class at the local JC..
Your emotion bores me.
Genius.
Dan
|
|
Posted by liberalism is a disease, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Mar 13, 2013 at 9:41 am
liberalism is a disease is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com Carl, your reference to being 'on the take' surely was meant for the union and labor interests in San Jose. Unions negotiate contracts based on the minimum wage as a starting point and demand compensation at a factor much higher than the minimum per hour. Aside from the obvious inflationary results of increased cost for goods and services, this also allows the unions to charge more for dues. Union dues are the mother's milk for the union thugs, the labor council, beholden politicians and other miscreants that claim to be looking out for the little guy (so they can screw everyone else not on the take).
Your transparent attempt to portray yourself as an advocate for 'working people' shows who is really 'on the take', comrade carl.
|
|
Posted by Stefan, a resident of the Foothill Knolls neighborhood, on Mar 13, 2013 at 12:42 pm Yes, I'm sure they teach in Econ 101 at the JC's that owners don't set prices, unionized workers do.
Sounds like the unskilled, undereducated, scab material are out on their envy campaign again. Surely they must know that most of us, unlike genius Dan and the Diseased one, don't have the luxury of living off of our spouse's earnings.
|
|
Posted by liberalism is a disease, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Mar 13, 2013 at 1:45 pm
liberalism is a disease is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com stefan, here's your econ lesson for today, in broken English, so you'll understand it:
The numero uno expense for most, if not all, businesses is labor cost (this means the amount of money required for payroll, benefits and payroll related taxes).
Even you must understand that when costs go up, businesses pass this cost on to consumers (those are people who have to purchase goods and services).
This cycle leads to inflation (increased costs for goods across the board) and reduces the purchasing power of everyone's take home pay (that's what's left after obama and gov moonbeam get done confiscating your earnings).
Another effect of political decisions to raise minimum wages includes layoffs by businesses who cannot justify paying low skilled labor at inflated rates.
By the way, thanks for recognizing that my wife is the bread winner in our household. Maybe someday you'll figure out how to marry well, but you'll probably have to remove that chip from your shoulder first.
|
|
Posted by Stefan, a resident of the Foothill Knolls neighborhood, on Mar 13, 2013 at 1:54 pm Perfect argument for why owners shouldn't make more in 'earnings' than the employees who do the real work. Without such exorbitant profit-taking by owners, costs would not be nearly as high. Exorbitant profit-taking leads to inflation. When the owners decide amount of profit-taking AND prices for items, consumers are screwed. Of course, this takes us beyond the high school economics pablum that the cognitively challenged Diseased One offers.
|
|
Posted by Dan, a resident of the Bridle Creek neighborhood, on Mar 13, 2013 at 3:55 pm So Carl has changed his/her name to Stephan.
Ugh!
"Real" work?
"Real" work is putting up your own capital and taking a risk on a business plan, and then having the courage to grow the business once its moderately successful.
"Profit-taking and Prices leads to inflation"? Seriously...don't use knives. This is so factually ignorant (on 'profit-taking') that it doesn't deserve my wasting time typing so I'll just link:
Web Link
And I normally don't link to Wiki...
You haven't any idea what you're talking about Carl/Stephan.
Dan
|
|
Posted by Stefan, a resident of the Foothill Knolls neighborhood, on Mar 13, 2013 at 5:59 pm Yep, "real" work is putting up Daddy's or Wifey's capital, or taking the profits from one's past exploitation of workers in another context, and then hoping your workers prove adequate to the task.
Hey Dan the Diseased One, I sympathize with the lack of intellect that goes into attempting to describe the real world by relying on corner lemonaid stand "economics," but if someone thinks that what owners decide to take as profits doesn't contribute to the prices of the items their workers produce for them, well, they need their head examined.
|
|
Posted by Dan, a resident of the Bridle Creek neighborhood, on Mar 13, 2013 at 8:19 pm Stephan/Carl/Phil et all...
Pocketing profit = Inflation?....hahahahaha!
Examine away, ya' goat.
You're not too serious so I'm done with you...just like kleenex.
Buhbye,
Dan
|
|
Posted by Carl, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 13, 2013 at 9:40 pm Typical Dan. Get's thoroughly outpointed and can only put his tail between his legs and scurry back into his hole. About what you'd expect from a 12 year-old.
You'd think of all the people who might be sympathetic to minimum wage it would be the uneducated and unskilled types like Dan and the other names he uses. But no, the dumbest and most unskilled among us can think of nothing better than to kiss up to his betters.
|
|
|
| |
|
Send this story
Print this story
