MoneyWatch California fast-food workers could see their wages reach $22 an hour next year

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california ... ge-ab-257/

California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday signed a nation-leading measure giving more than a half-million fast food workers more power and protections, despite the objections of restaurant owners who warned it would drive up consumers' costs.

The landmark law creates a 10-member Fast Food Council with equal numbers of workers' delegates and employers' representatives, along with two state officials, empowered to set minimum standards for wages, hours and working conditions in California.

Newsom said he was proud to sign the measure into law on Labor Day.

"California is committed to ensuring that the men and women who have helped build our world-class economy are able to share in the state's prosperity," he said in a statement. "Today's action gives hardworking fast food workers a stronger voice and seat at the table to set fair wages and critical health and safety standards across the industry."

The law caps minimum wage increases for fast-food workers at chains with more than 100 restaurants at $22 an hour next year, compared to the statewide minimum of $15.50 an hour, with cost of living increases thereafter.

The state legislature approved the measure on Aug. 29. Debate split along party lines, with Republicans opposed. Sen. Brian Dahle, the Republican nominee for governor in November, had called it "a steppingstone to unionize all these workers."
Higher prices for consumers?

Restaurant owners and franchisers cited an analysis they commissioned by the UC Riverside Center for Economic Forecast and Development saying that the legislation would increase consumer costs.

But supporters of the legislation hailed it as a big win for workers, with Assemblywoman Luz Rivas calling it a "watershed moment" for labor.

Members of "Fight for $15," an advocacy group that has helped lead the fight for a higher minimum wage, also cheered the passage of the bill, known as AB 257.

"We've gone on strike, marched in the streets and rallied across the state to make sure our demand for a voice on the job was heard even as powerful corporations pulled out all the stops to silence us," said Anneisha Williams, a Los Angeles fast-food worker and leader in the Fight for $15. "We look forward to having a say in creating safe and healthy workplaces across the fast-food industry and to AB 257 serving as a model for workers across the country who desperately need a seat at the table."

The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour and hasn't risen since 2009. Research has shown that if the minimum wage had kept pace with gains in the economy's productivity over the last 50 years, it would be nearly $26 an hour today, or more than $50,000 a year in annual income.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

Here is an are where I get to piss both sides off. I have no issue with worker's right to unionize. I think that is vital to a healthy Democracy. What I don't like is the government intruding on that relationship. This amounts to state mandated unionization. This is what true socialism looks like.

I have a question for Newsom. Now that McDonalds costs me as much as The French Laundry does that mean we can dine in McDonalds without a mask during a pandemic? I'm asking for a friend.

[Senor Natural]

It is about time government corrected the mistake it made when minimum wage was fist enacted without indexing it to inflation. That provision was in the original legislation but was subject to opposition by the GOP and removed.
Kudos for government fixing the error, even if they are still failing to provide a minimum wage indexed to inflation . . .

We've eaten in a restaurant twice since covid. In both instances, there were hardly anyone else in them, well spaced and the wait staff wore masks.
We wore ours except for eating.
To be honest with you, we both thought retrospectively that we took an unnecessary chance, and we felt 'lucky' and fortunate to have escaped getting Covid.

My doctor told me to get my flu shot first, next week, wait a week and get the new Covid booster - either one is as good as the other according to the doctor's office.
The rational for getting flu first is that my immunity from last year's shot has decreased to probably nothing and flu is already hitting in San Antonio, whereas my 2 Covid shots and 2 subsequent boosters are still providing pretty robust immune response should I encounter it.
So, next week, I get a flu shot, and the following week I get a new Covid booster, whichever one is available at the pharmacy.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

It is about time government corrected the mistake it made when minimum wage was fist enacted without indexing it to inflations.

I have two thoughts on this.

1. If we are going to have a minimum wage the only way it makes sense is if it is indexed to either inflation or average income
2. I don't think there should be a minimum wage.

While it is true that the minimum wage sets the minimum an employee can be paid, it's secondary effect is it sets the minimum value an employee must provide a company. This has the effect of forcing some people completely out of the market for employment. A question rarely addressed in Capitalism is what do we do with people who can't provide enough value to a company to keep a job? A minimum wage increases this number, while we pat our selves on the back for helping others. Again all laws have trade offs.

So, next week, I get a flu shot, and the following week I get a new Covid booster, whichever one is available at the pharmacy.

Is your doctor able to get the new Omnicrom booster?

[Senor Natural]

New Omicron boosters are currently available at both Walgreens and CVS and should soon be available at other pharmacies. In Texas, they are administrated by pharmacies or hospitals, not by individual doctors. One hospital here advertised today in the paper and in the local news that they are administering the new boosters.

No company has a job of any type that doesn't not provide significantly to the bottom line - profit.
Pretty much everybody is trainable. Even mildly retarded people can be trained to do productive, profitable work for companies. I know os some that are employed.
Minimum wage should be a livable wage, above poverty criteria.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

New Omicron boosters are currently available at both Mal;greens and CVS and should soon be available at other pharmacies. In Texas, they are administrated by pharmacies or hospitals, not by individual doctors. One hospital here advertised today in the paper and in the local news that they are administering the new boosters.

I had heard there is some available at pharmacies, but haven't looked into yet. My company will do group vaccination as they always do, so I'm in a good position to wait for that. I was just curious about your case.

No company has a job of any type that doesn't not provide significantly to the bottom line - profit.

That is the point I'm making. If a job becomes so expensive that it no longer adds enough to the bottom line then it gets cut. The more expensive an employee is the higher this line.

Pretty much everybody is trainable.

Everybody is trainable at something. The question is whether or not everyone is trainable at something a given company needs. The answer to that is pretty complicated, but again, the more a company must pay the higher that line becomes.

Even mildly retarded people can be trained to do productive, profitable work for companies.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "mildly retarded". I'm not trying to be cute or glib, but it's just not a term that is quantifiable. But the US military actively rejects 10% of the population based on IQ alone. (Note that is an IQ of 83 is the bottom 10%. Most physiologists classify this as "Borderline mentally disabled". In my mind "Mildly Retarded" would be colloquial for " Mild mental disability" or bellow 55 points. This is over 40% below the rate that the military deems someone untrained for their purposes. More citations available if needed.)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/520

(a) The number of persons originally enlisted or inducted to serve on active duty (other than active duty for training) in any armed force during any fiscal year whose score on the Armed Forces Qualification Test is at or above the tenth percentile and below the thirty-first percentile may not exceed 20 percent of the total number of persons originally enlisted or inducted to serve on active duty (other than active duty for training) in such armed force during such fiscal year.[/quote}

If there is nothing these people can do that is productive to the military, a non-profit organization, what could they possible offer in terms of value when judged for profitability?

There are many programs that help mentally disabled people find work. Often these hiring are charitable write offs and the the disabled individual works under constant supervision from a volunteer or employee of the charitable organization. These programs are wonderful and I fully support them. If I were in the situation I would use them however I could. That isn't the same thing these people having value in the free market sense. It does honer their value in a human sense.

Minimum wage should be a livable wage, above poverty criteria.

Okay, that is fair enough, but in your mind how is that poverty criteria set? What is it based on?

[Senor Natural]

1 standard deviation below normal is called mildly retarded.
Normal is 85 to 115.
70 - 85 is mild retardation.
55-70, moderate retardation.
Below 55 is profound retardation.
115 to 129 - gifted and talented
130 up - genius
140 up rare, rare, rare

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

1 standard deviation below normal is called mildly retarded.

Retarded isn't a word that is used any long in any official capacity. It's actually considered in insault today. So you are referring to "Borderline Mentally Disabled" which, as I said the military will not recruit them...

https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a- ... re-2795585

1 to 24: Profound mental disability
25 to 39: Severe mental disability
40 to 54: Moderate mental disability
55 to 69: Mild mental disability
70 to 84: Borderline mental disability
85 to 114: Average intelligence
115 to 129: Above average or bright
130 to 144: Moderately gifted
145 to 159: Highly gifted
160 to 179: Exceptionally gifted
180 and up: Profoundly gifted

[Senor Natural]

1 standard deviation below normal is called mildly retarded.

Retarded isn't a word that is used any long in any official capacity. It's actually considered in insault today. So you are referring to "Borderline Mentally Disabled" which, as I said the military will not recruit them...

https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a- ... re-2795585

1 to 24: Profound mental disability
25 to 39: Severe mental disability
40 to 54: Moderate mental disability
55 to 69: Mild mental disability
70 to 84: Borderline mental disability
85 to 114: Average intelligence
115 to 129: Above average or bright
130 to 144: Moderately gifted
145 to 159: Highly gifted
160 to 179: Exceptionally gifted
180 and up: Profoundly gifted

Been awhile since I took psychology and studied for Master's Degree as an educational diagnostician.
Boy times and terminology have changed.
Not that all those words really mean anything different.
Terminology changes every so often on how reality is described, but in no way does it actually change the reality.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

Been awhile since I took psychology and studied for Master's Degree as an educational diagnostician.

I know it. and "Retarded" was change to "Mentally Disabled" that long ago I want to say late 90's, early 2000's. I guess that speaks to my age when I think 20 years ago was "not that long ago".

I always think of my Grandmother in these situations. She used the word "Colored" to describe black people. But she would say things like, "I never agreed with how them colored people were treated". For most of her life that was the term that was used. She never could wrap her hear around it being problematic. To her it wasn't, it just was the word that was used. Now even "black" can be offensive to some.

[Tarmaque]

130 to 144: Moderately gifted

Damn. Last IQ test I took I scored a 132. Which of course means nothing because IQ tests have been shown to be bullshit for decades. I just happen to be "moderately gifted" at taking standardized tests.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

Which of course means nothing because IQ tests have been shown to be bullshit for decades.

There is a pretty clear correlation between IQ and success. There are outliers, but it's actually a pretty good predictor of potential in Western society.. And I'm not the least bit surprised by your score.

[Tarmaque]

There is a pretty clear correlation between IQ and success. There are outliers, but it's actually a pretty good predictor of potential in Western society.. And I'm not the least bit surprised by your score.

It can be a general predictor of success, but it's been shown to be more an indicator of education and culture than actual cognitive ability. For decades IQ testes were specifically designed to exclude certain racial types, for example. And of course people who cannot read or come from a different culture and don't understand the cultural cues in them will perform at a lower level. There are other ways to assess cognitive ability of course, but they generally are not called "IQ tests."

I recall the IQ test I took most recently having several questions that I knew the answer to ahead of time rather than having to work it out. This is a typical example of a test designed to measure education rather than ability.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

but it's been shown to be more an indicator of education and culture than actual cognitive ability.

Cognitive ability is complicated, in many ways it relative. IQ tests do test for a particular types of cognitive abilities, but neglects others.

For decades IQ testes were specifically designed to exclude certain racial types, for example. And of course people who cannot read or come from a different culture and don't understand the cultural cues in them will perform at a lower level.

I know this is a well cited claim, but it's implication is that there are cognitive differences based on race. The evidence for this is dubious. The test was designed for western culture. Culture is very different then race, far to often we conflate the two in social science and it fuels racism. Even as you write this you seem on the verge of realizing this.

Also, it's worth pointing out that the tests that are used to assess learning disabilities are very similar to IQ test. In fact the questions over lap enough that both are often administered together.

[Senor Natural]

I have administered several IQ tests, a dozen or more. One person, a young female student had an overall score of 88, different components more or less.
Her siblings scored much higher - a brother and a sister.
The low scorer got a college degree, married well to a teacher, teaches herself, she and her husband started and have run a successful small business in addition to teaching careers. She was a dedicated and serious student, had to work hard and study more than most to succeed.
Her sister scored around 125, dropped out of college early, became a 'dancer', finally married after several disastrous relationships, still doesn't work, is a decent mother to one daughter and several step-children from her spouse's previous marriage, which ended because he fell for a 'dancer'.
The brother scored the highest, 129, + or - maybe whatever you call a genius now. Real smart, engaging but never finished college, married a nurse, is a decent father, but he seldom keeps a job more than about a year and half.
In my own family, I scored the lowest - 100. Father is 141, brother 126, sister 131. Father was financially successful, but I have both matched him and exceeded him. Brother and sister succeeded to a much lesser degree. Both died young 68 and 56 respectively.
I know several people in Mensa, Most actually aren't all that successful, genius underachievers, seem more proud of their Mensa membership than their achievements, which are few.
Hard work and smart work seem more determinate for success than IQ.