Legislature considering increase to California minimum wage

April 29, 2013

moneyDemocratic Assemblyman Luis Alejo is attempting to raise California’s minimum wage by $1.25 over the next three years. [LA Times]

Alejo, of Watsonville, is the sponsor of Assembly Bill 10, which could create the first raise in the state’s minimum wage since 2008. If adopted, AB 10 would raise minimum wage from $8 an hour to $8.25 next year, to $8.75 in 2015 and to $9.25 in 2016. Annual adjustments thereafter would occur based on California’s inflation rate.

Last week, the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee passed the bill on a party-line vote.

Alejo told the committee that the bill would “help ensure equity for minimum wage workers.”

Labor unions support the proposed minimum wage increase, while the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Restaurant Association and the Western Growers Association plan to fight its progress through the Legislature. The Chamber of Commerce calls the bill a “job killer.”

Similar bills sponsored by Alejo died in the Assembly in 2011 and 2012.

California currently has one of the highest minimum wages in the nation. Washington state has the highest at $9.19 an hour, followed by Oregon at $8.95 and Vermont at $8.60.


Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Bottom line: Anyone who thinks $16,000/year for full time work is too much is either Scrooge incarnate or totally out of touch with today’s cost of living.

I don’t think anyone expects one to live on that. Like I said in a different comment, Micky D’s jobs, Circle K jobs and the like are ENTRY LEVEL JOBS!! They are not a job to do for a living. There are many Blue Collar jobs as I mentioned that people can train into.

When you can train for a job in ten minutes you can’t expect to bring down 50k a year.

No. But as I actually said, $16,000 doesnt seem too much for this kind of job.

A job is only worth what someone wants to pay. I can either pay an employee to do what I need done or I can do it myself. If it costs me too much to pay someone to get it done than I’ll do it myself.

But your figure is arbitrary, as is the minimum wage. What should the MAXIMUM WAGE be?

Economics is not a hard science. You cannot assume exact figures like this in economics.

What about the people at the margins? All prices are negotiable and the result of human action and choices. This process is by nature unpredictable. All human activity on earth is in a state of constant transformation, as is nature.

The notion that government can predict the future or what prices for labor ought to be at any given time is preposterous. It can’t be done, though Paul Krugman and Ben Bernanke pretend that they can.

Many of those jobs which might have paid a little bit less don’t exist just because the government sets an arbitrary price for wages. Those which DO exist are in the free market shadows, paid under the table.

In my opinion, the post of the month was just placed here on this thread by Jorge Estrada. It’s worth repeating.

“Employment funded by the tax paying private sector, government jobs, teachers, etc, should have their minimum wages increased while their maximum wages should be no higher than the average mean wage of the private sector.”

This will increase unemployment.

But it will also increase free market economics (often called the “shadow economy” by those who want to downplay free market capitalism).

More people will be paid under the table at marginal rates, i.e., somewhat lower than the legal rate forced on us by the police state, in order to avoid the robbery of taxes and the intrusions of unwanted government regulations.

As the Daily Bell says,

“The US – like most “advanced” countries, is chock full of transactions that avoid official standards and taxes. It has to be this way, as those advancing the bureaucratic/nationalistic narrative continue to raise taxes, add to the regulatory state and generally make it impossible for people to survive without breaking at least some laws.”


Since 1969 the US census Bureau has u sed a single nationa wide income level to determine who lives in poverty. The agency has added a new supplemental measure that takes into account geographical variations in cost of living. With these additional factors Ca is the poorest, Wyoming and N.D. are are the least poor.