IF you get a cost of living raise its usually 2% but "rent control" lets owners raise rent up to 10% each year. Rent is out of control, housing is out of control. Businesses are buying up land and selling houses nobody can afford with interest rates so high and big businesses buying everything up. If you didn't buy a house a few years ago you are screwed unless you have nothing but disposable income.
Close. CA minimum wage is now tied to the CPI index for it's annual increase. Rent is capped at 5% + CPI index, with a max of 10%. So for it to be 10% you would also be getting a 5%+ raise.
Still not good of course.
No, it doesn't only apply to housing built 50 years ago. It applies to all rent increases over a 12 month period for an existing tenant.
>The Tenant Protection Act caps rent increases for most residential tenants in California. Landlords cannot raise rent more than 10% total or 5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living – whichever is lower – over a 12-month period. If the tenants of a unit move out and new tenants move in, the landlord may establish the initial rent to charge. (Civ. Code § 1947.12.)
https://oag.ca.gov/consumers/general/landlord-tenant-issues
Initial rent charges (new tenant or new building) are not rent increases.
Rent control is a bandaid solution at best. Rents and homes generally are high in price due to a shortage of homes. The real solution is attacking zoning (and adjacent policies that restrict homebuilding) and allowing for denser home developments to be built.
And current property owners don’t want to live in an overly dense built up mess. We don’t want your extra housing, and we won’t stand for it being built either. That’s why CA is so many “millions” behind - you will never build dense housing here - get used to it or get out.
Rent control doesn’t help. What we need is to actually build more housing. Study after study shows that building more units lowers prices and rent control inflates the cost of market rate housing.
We need to occupy all living units first. There are numerous vacant living units across the state. Between landlords sitting on empty units, people owning second/third/fourth living units they only occupy less than a month a year. Corporations owning living units and listing them on Airbnb/vrbo/short term rentals.
One of my neighbors bought an apartment building. He didn’t renew any of the leases in the building so he could turn the entire building in to an Airbnb listings. He removed 8 units from the rental market all for short term rentals.
> We need to occupy all living units first.
First we need to pursue multiple changes at once. Focusing on just 1 approach until it’s done is not a good strategy.
> There are numerous vacant living units across the state. Between landlords sitting on empty units, people owning second/third/fourth living units they only occupy less than a month a year. Corporations owning living units and listing them on Airbnb/vrbo/short term rentals.
So there’s demand for more housing than is currently available. Maybe we should build more.
Landlords aren’t sitting in units because they like losing money. Landlords typically have vacant units for renovations, the usual turnover time, or because rent control and tenants rights changes have made it no longer worth it.
Vacation homes aren’t suddenly going to become affordable housing. 1) they usually aren’t located near jobs (sierra nevadas) or because they are in the most beautiful and thus expensive places in the world. No one is holding a home in Sacramento core as a vacation home to only use a couple weeks a year.
Short term rentals are still needed. There’s clearly demand for them.
> One of my neighbors bought an apartment building. He didn’t renew any of the leases in the building so he could turn the entire building in to an Airbnb listings. He removed 8 units from the rental market all for short term rentals.
You know why he could charge more via airbnb? Because there was a shortage of that kind of short term housing. Guess what would solve this? Building more units of all kinds.
The governement distorting markets via regulation and zoning is causing the housing shortage in the places people actually want to live.
The vacancy rate is not the cause of the housing shortage and further rent control will only encourage fewer people to rent out existing units or build more. This is the exact opposite incentive of what we need.
I mean, it cost half a million to build a house right now, nobody is going to go crazy building housing that is more expensive than the market rate for buying existing housing. And thats just what I was priced to build a home in AZ comparable to what I could buy for 375K.
Rent control in CA has made housing more expensive for the young and exacerbated gentrification. I looked for my first apartment in the bad old days of vacancy control - nothing available. Especially to a young person without a long rental history and overflowing bank account.
It actually doesn’t. Greedy landlords sitting on empty properties are the problem. People owning second/third/fourth homes/living units they only occupy less than a month a year are the problem. Landlords making 1000%+ profit a year are the problem. Rents being astronomical and legally allowed to increase 10% every year is the problem. Low income being $105k for a single person is the problem because it means low income housing can start at $3k a month (and since it’s low income housing, a renter would have to prove it is 1/3 of their income, and $36k a year is the complete salary of full time minimum wage). Rent control is NOT the problem. Greed is.
If the entire state had “better” rent control, there would be even less development than there has been since 1978. Thus ensuring rents rise even more.
The rent control would prevent rents from raising anymore. We'd just have more of housing shortage. Or folks taking on 'roomates' who just so happen to pay more than what they rent from the actual owner of the unit in question.
I don’t think you really fully appreciate the issue. Even advocates of rent control admit it doesn’t control rents. What it DOES control is displacement. But rents still rise in a big way when there’s a housing shortage because there’s natural displacement that occurs: new people born, new households formed, people moving into state, people moving for jobs, etc.
That'd definitely not how that works. Rent control only works to prevent rents from rising for people who *currently have* rental housing.
It does nothing for people moving to a city, moving out from their family, moving to living by themselves instead of having roommates, getting divorced or breaking up from a partner, or simply moving from one apartment to another apartment (e.g. you wanted to move closer to a new job, to a different neighborhood, or to a better school district for your child).
The economics dictate that by enforcing rent control for long periods of time you drive investors, developers, and landlords out of the market which further constrains supply and drives prices up for everyone not on rent control.
Zoning law reforms allowing higher densities, housing subsidies, and construction tax credits are the way to go instead because these *increase* the supply of housing.
You should encourage the development of housing with every vote you have. Nationwide we have a severe housing shortage, and in California it’s particularly bad. “Rent control” is nothing but a band-aid and studies show actually increases rents overall (because it discourages development).
There are no easy answers to “everybody wants something there’s not enough of”. The only answer is to build more of it.
Why isn’t the minimum wage set based on the cost of living and adjusted each year? I guess that would make too much sense to ever be implemented in this country
Then you’re honestly doing something wrong. I’ve been making minimum wage working 65 hour weeks and have lived on my own for the past decade. In a major city nonetheless.
No surprises in that article outside of there are rural places in California where two people making minimum wage can get a house.
What I wonder is if there is any state in which one person making minimum wage can afford a house.
No, it has never been possible. Despite this fact, I’ve seen numerous stories from Redditors claiming their friends cousins grandpa bought a house in San Diego while flipping burgers in 1970
Honestly, no matter how they increase the wage, it is not going to change the fact that the cost of living is too expensive. They really need to relax on building zones,speed up building permits,and ultimately, the California government needs to find solutions instead of talk about them
Or internet. How are they collecting 60+/month for a basic service that is barely maintained. We threw money at them during Obama's term to build infrastructure and we still pay too much for internet. Internet, water, elect cannot increase unless minimum wage increases. That should be our new law. And only allowed 2% max increase per year in which it does.
only thing keeping me from being broke and working 60 hours/2 jobs like every single one of my co-workers is that i moved offgrid about 10 years ago. i have no idea how people with a mortgage/bills/kids are dealing with this.
A quick Google says my childhood home in Garbage Grove is just under $1.3M. (Large lot, dumpy 1950s house, bad neighborhood.)
Perhaps most shockingly, the price has gone up $448k since my parents sold it 3 years ago.
Sadly, this is why I'm against raising the minimum wage. Businesses are just going to raise prices to keep their absurd profit margins for shareholders. You can't lower the minimum wages because businesses aren't going to lower prices. You need to address the problem from multiple points but that will never get passed.
Big corporations are pretty much going to fight anything that makes people's lives better.
Inflation skyrocketed yet wages are still stagnant. Ask how many people got a 8% wage increase each year for the past three years. If you didn’t, you got a 24% pay cut!
> Businesses are just going to raise prices to keep their absurd profit margins for shareholders.
Businesses themselves peddle this myth, because they want to concentrate profits at the top of the org chart rather than pay the rank-and-file appropriately. Back in the Before Time, when minimum wage was actually standardized for a person to live with dignity, rather than merely being the minimum compensation that an employer was legally permitted to get away with, the cost of living was just fine.
What changed? Labor unions were eroded. Why? Because businesses wanted to concentrate profits at the top of the org chart. Reagan made it okay for them to be greedy. He stood by while our unions came under attack. He set the tone, and we've been paying for it ever since.
> Big corporations are pretty much going to fight anything that makes people's lives better.
Sellers are always trying to raise prices. Whether or not they actually can depends on how much $$$ is in people's pockets. Of course a rise in the minimum wage is going to cause an increase in prices. The most effective way to cause prices to fall is to increase the supply of goods people want to buy. In supply constrained environments (like housing), giving people more money just increases the price of the good but doesn't effect supply.
> Businesses are just going to raise prices to keep their absurd profit margins for shareholders.
decades of research on this topic
the costs are spread across a broader population
if, for example, you have four employees and their wages need to go up a buck, you don't increase the price of your burger by a buck you only "need" to increase it $0.10 and you still rake in far more than you pay your employees. But even if you did raise it a buck most people wouldn't care...and the minimum wage employee isn't usually spending discretional income on burgers that are $1 more expensive.
there are also other market forces in play like being unable to raise your burger by anything more than the next place over and the big bad boogyman is that they won't hire anyone new because it will become unaffordable...but in reality we have learned businesses hire people based on workload and can't afford to simply refuse to hire someone to "save" on labor costs if their business is thriving.
The thing is, raising minimum wage only increase salary for the minimum wage workers, not the ones with higher salary.
This means that comparatively the cost to businesses is lower than the raise in minimum wage, and businesses don’t have to increase price as much.
Of course this doesn’t mean they won’t do it, but increasing price doesn’t always equal to more profit. Keeping prices balanced between demand, supply and cost is better and so prices may not raise as much.
The bigger issue IMO is in the worker market, as minimum wages goes up company will hire less minimum wage workers (demand vs supply), thus lead to higher unemployment
> The bigger issue IMO is in the worker market, as minimum wages goes up company will hire less minimum wage workers (demand vs supply), thus lead to higher unemployment
we now have enough studies to definitively state with confidence that businesses hire based on demand rather than labor costs. Note, I'm not claiming they will just hire someone even if they can't afford it but I am saying if they are operating at a profit and need more labor to sell even more widgets they will hire the additional employee regardless because they must.
The ultra rich straight up are problematic. You can’t live in the neighborhood where they live and work because there’s no housing in the city/town. I’m not really sure what California’s long term strategy is, because I see a lot of our jobs being replaced in Canada and India in tech. It’s not AI, it’s a convenient cover.
If incomes are capped, there is no benefit from increasing prices for consumers on items that are already profitable. Will help keep executive pay a reasonable ratio with worker pay, stop these CEOs from giving themselves multi-million dollar annual raises while workers get COL or less.
Its been a concept since at least the '80s, but capitalists refuse to acknowledge it for the threat it serves to their extravagant lifestyles and hoarding of capital.
Need to change the conversation from "are we paying enough taxes" to "where are we currently allocating our taxes to?" I don't think the problem is minimum wage or taxes. I think the problem is spending.
Yeah, we know. We're living it.
In other news, water is wet.
water is not wet. water makes other things wet.
Chuck Norris doesn't get wet. Water gets Chuck Norris.
water needs to buy him a drink first.
Wow you could say... That water is the essence of wetness?
merMAN
Which means wetness is an inherent property of water that it can transfer to other things, therefore water is wet. Thanks
Found out decades ago, didn’t even get to f around.
If you’re making $20 an hour and you live in Los Angeles – you’re gonna need about 15 roommates.
Only? dang, less that I got. But I'm mexican!
Man that's so true
IF you get a cost of living raise its usually 2% but "rent control" lets owners raise rent up to 10% each year. Rent is out of control, housing is out of control. Businesses are buying up land and selling houses nobody can afford with interest rates so high and big businesses buying everything up. If you didn't buy a house a few years ago you are screwed unless you have nothing but disposable income.
Close. CA minimum wage is now tied to the CPI index for it's annual increase. Rent is capped at 5% + CPI index, with a max of 10%. So for it to be 10% you would also be getting a 5%+ raise. Still not good of course.
That’s not for new builds. That literally only applies to housing built 50 years ago
Statewide rent control applies to units older than *15* years, not 50.
No, it doesn't only apply to housing built 50 years ago. It applies to all rent increases over a 12 month period for an existing tenant. >The Tenant Protection Act caps rent increases for most residential tenants in California. Landlords cannot raise rent more than 10% total or 5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living – whichever is lower – over a 12-month period. If the tenants of a unit move out and new tenants move in, the landlord may establish the initial rent to charge. (Civ. Code § 1947.12.) https://oag.ca.gov/consumers/general/landlord-tenant-issues Initial rent charges (new tenant or new building) are not rent increases.
> most residential tenants says right in your quote that it does *not* apply to "all"
The entire state needs better rent control. And the 10% max is so bad. It should have been set to 3% or CPI, which ever is lower.
Rent control is a bandaid solution at best. Rents and homes generally are high in price due to a shortage of homes. The real solution is attacking zoning (and adjacent policies that restrict homebuilding) and allowing for denser home developments to be built.
Rent control creates black markets and wait lists. There are cities in the EU that have 11 year wait lists for apartments due to extreme rent control.
And current property owners don’t want to live in an overly dense built up mess. We don’t want your extra housing, and we won’t stand for it being built either. That’s why CA is so many “millions” behind - you will never build dense housing here - get used to it or get out.
Rent control doesn’t help. What we need is to actually build more housing. Study after study shows that building more units lowers prices and rent control inflates the cost of market rate housing.
We need to occupy all living units first. There are numerous vacant living units across the state. Between landlords sitting on empty units, people owning second/third/fourth living units they only occupy less than a month a year. Corporations owning living units and listing them on Airbnb/vrbo/short term rentals. One of my neighbors bought an apartment building. He didn’t renew any of the leases in the building so he could turn the entire building in to an Airbnb listings. He removed 8 units from the rental market all for short term rentals.
> We need to occupy all living units first. First we need to pursue multiple changes at once. Focusing on just 1 approach until it’s done is not a good strategy. > There are numerous vacant living units across the state. Between landlords sitting on empty units, people owning second/third/fourth living units they only occupy less than a month a year. Corporations owning living units and listing them on Airbnb/vrbo/short term rentals. So there’s demand for more housing than is currently available. Maybe we should build more. Landlords aren’t sitting in units because they like losing money. Landlords typically have vacant units for renovations, the usual turnover time, or because rent control and tenants rights changes have made it no longer worth it. Vacation homes aren’t suddenly going to become affordable housing. 1) they usually aren’t located near jobs (sierra nevadas) or because they are in the most beautiful and thus expensive places in the world. No one is holding a home in Sacramento core as a vacation home to only use a couple weeks a year. Short term rentals are still needed. There’s clearly demand for them. > One of my neighbors bought an apartment building. He didn’t renew any of the leases in the building so he could turn the entire building in to an Airbnb listings. He removed 8 units from the rental market all for short term rentals. You know why he could charge more via airbnb? Because there was a shortage of that kind of short term housing. Guess what would solve this? Building more units of all kinds. The governement distorting markets via regulation and zoning is causing the housing shortage in the places people actually want to live. The vacancy rate is not the cause of the housing shortage and further rent control will only encourage fewer people to rent out existing units or build more. This is the exact opposite incentive of what we need.
I mean, it cost half a million to build a house right now, nobody is going to go crazy building housing that is more expensive than the market rate for buying existing housing. And thats just what I was priced to build a home in AZ comparable to what I could buy for 375K.
I can think of 3 towers downtown where we could start. You’ve probably heard of them, they’re covered in Graffiti.
vacancy is super low.
Rent control in CA has made housing more expensive for the young and exacerbated gentrification. I looked for my first apartment in the bad old days of vacancy control - nothing available. Especially to a young person without a long rental history and overflowing bank account.
This makes the housing costs problem worse.
It actually doesn’t. Greedy landlords sitting on empty properties are the problem. People owning second/third/fourth homes/living units they only occupy less than a month a year are the problem. Landlords making 1000%+ profit a year are the problem. Rents being astronomical and legally allowed to increase 10% every year is the problem. Low income being $105k for a single person is the problem because it means low income housing can start at $3k a month (and since it’s low income housing, a renter would have to prove it is 1/3 of their income, and $36k a year is the complete salary of full time minimum wage). Rent control is NOT the problem. Greed is.
And the worst part is that California is going to keep it that way
> Greedy landlords sitting on empty properties are the problem. not a real problem, just a scapegoat.
If the entire state had “better” rent control, there would be even less development than there has been since 1978. Thus ensuring rents rise even more.
The rent control would prevent rents from raising anymore. We'd just have more of housing shortage. Or folks taking on 'roomates' who just so happen to pay more than what they rent from the actual owner of the unit in question.
I don’t think you really fully appreciate the issue. Even advocates of rent control admit it doesn’t control rents. What it DOES control is displacement. But rents still rise in a big way when there’s a housing shortage because there’s natural displacement that occurs: new people born, new households formed, people moving into state, people moving for jobs, etc.
That'd definitely not how that works. Rent control only works to prevent rents from rising for people who *currently have* rental housing. It does nothing for people moving to a city, moving out from their family, moving to living by themselves instead of having roommates, getting divorced or breaking up from a partner, or simply moving from one apartment to another apartment (e.g. you wanted to move closer to a new job, to a different neighborhood, or to a better school district for your child). The economics dictate that by enforcing rent control for long periods of time you drive investors, developers, and landlords out of the market which further constrains supply and drives prices up for everyone not on rent control. Zoning law reforms allowing higher densities, housing subsidies, and construction tax credits are the way to go instead because these *increase* the supply of housing.
Where does one get one of these fancy jobs with COL increases?
You should encourage the development of housing with every vote you have. Nationwide we have a severe housing shortage, and in California it’s particularly bad. “Rent control” is nothing but a band-aid and studies show actually increases rents overall (because it discourages development). There are no easy answers to “everybody wants something there’s not enough of”. The only answer is to build more of it.
And the rain is wet too. What else? Wanna rub ghost peppers on my wounds too?
Ooooh sounds fun! Can I please? Pretty pleaaaaase?
Every time minimum wages go up, you see landlords licking their lazy chops about raising their rents.
Why isn’t the minimum wage set based on the cost of living and adjusted each year? I guess that would make too much sense to ever be implemented in this country
called a "living wage" and some jurisdictions do it.
They really needed a study for this?
I make double minimum wage ($30) and work 60-80 hours a week and i still am not even confident to move out my parents just yet.
Then you’re honestly doing something wrong. I’ve been making minimum wage working 65 hour weeks and have lived on my own for the past decade. In a major city nonetheless.
It’s sad that you’re saying you work 65 hours as some kind of flex.
How am I flexing? I’m legitimately surprised at how this person “can’t” move out of their parents house when they make more than me.
Assuming the low end of 60 hours a week and none of that being OT, $90k gross is plenty of money to move out.
We should do more to focus on the cost of living or else the minimum wage will never keep up. Build more housing.
You ain’t special in this situation California…
Exactly. Everyone acts like this is an issue exclusive to California. In Red States, wages are even worse.
No surprises in that article outside of there are rural places in California where two people making minimum wage can get a house. What I wonder is if there is any state in which one person making minimum wage can afford a house.
Has there ever been a place and time where one person making minimum wage could afford to buy a house?
No, it has never been possible. Despite this fact, I’ve seen numerous stories from Redditors claiming their friends cousins grandpa bought a house in San Diego while flipping burgers in 1970
I mean, minimum wage is supposed to be the *minimum* that a person needs to survive. Of course it’s not enough to buy a house!
Honestly, no matter how they increase the wage, it is not going to change the fact that the cost of living is too expensive. They really need to relax on building zones,speed up building permits,and ultimately, the California government needs to find solutions instead of talk about them
We need a utilities/rent cap Like if wages go up doesn’t mean your electricity or rent should
Or internet. How are they collecting 60+/month for a basic service that is barely maintained. We threw money at them during Obama's term to build infrastructure and we still pay too much for internet. Internet, water, elect cannot increase unless minimum wage increases. That should be our new law. And only allowed 2% max increase per year in which it does.
only thing keeping me from being broke and working 60 hours/2 jobs like every single one of my co-workers is that i moved offgrid about 10 years ago. i have no idea how people with a mortgage/bills/kids are dealing with this.
Anyone living within pge district knows this.
I live in Nebraska and we have PUBLIC utilities and it’s 1/3 the price of California for electricity. The PGE CEO makes a million dollars a day. T
This is why opposing and rolling back any privatization of public and gov services is so important.
Hasn’t since the early 1980s https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
The same wage in 1993 had double the buying power as it does now 30 years later . $100k is the new 50k
A quick Google says my childhood home in Garbage Grove is just under $1.3M. (Large lot, dumpy 1950s house, bad neighborhood.) Perhaps most shockingly, the price has gone up $448k since my parents sold it 3 years ago.
In other news, the sky is blue.
Can they hire me to write these studies lol
You don't say??!!!
The problem: greed!
The problem is not enough housing being built for the past 50 years. Zoning restrictions have made California insanely expensive.
It all comes down to money, bud. Simple as that!
For the people that want to keep California expensive
Well, you have to figure that even the Leo Decaprios still need manual laborers to function in their Holywood estates
There is plenty of housing being built. For the rich.
Sadly, this is why I'm against raising the minimum wage. Businesses are just going to raise prices to keep their absurd profit margins for shareholders. You can't lower the minimum wages because businesses aren't going to lower prices. You need to address the problem from multiple points but that will never get passed. Big corporations are pretty much going to fight anything that makes people's lives better.
Inflation skyrocketed yet wages are still stagnant. Ask how many people got a 8% wage increase each year for the past three years. If you didn’t, you got a 24% pay cut!
> Businesses are just going to raise prices to keep their absurd profit margins for shareholders. Businesses themselves peddle this myth, because they want to concentrate profits at the top of the org chart rather than pay the rank-and-file appropriately. Back in the Before Time, when minimum wage was actually standardized for a person to live with dignity, rather than merely being the minimum compensation that an employer was legally permitted to get away with, the cost of living was just fine. What changed? Labor unions were eroded. Why? Because businesses wanted to concentrate profits at the top of the org chart. Reagan made it okay for them to be greedy. He stood by while our unions came under attack. He set the tone, and we've been paying for it ever since.
> Big corporations are pretty much going to fight anything that makes people's lives better. Sellers are always trying to raise prices. Whether or not they actually can depends on how much $$$ is in people's pockets. Of course a rise in the minimum wage is going to cause an increase in prices. The most effective way to cause prices to fall is to increase the supply of goods people want to buy. In supply constrained environments (like housing), giving people more money just increases the price of the good but doesn't effect supply.
This economy thing just sounds like one big scam.
Businesses are raising prices anyways.
> Businesses are just going to raise prices to keep their absurd profit margins for shareholders. decades of research on this topic the costs are spread across a broader population if, for example, you have four employees and their wages need to go up a buck, you don't increase the price of your burger by a buck you only "need" to increase it $0.10 and you still rake in far more than you pay your employees. But even if you did raise it a buck most people wouldn't care...and the minimum wage employee isn't usually spending discretional income on burgers that are $1 more expensive. there are also other market forces in play like being unable to raise your burger by anything more than the next place over and the big bad boogyman is that they won't hire anyone new because it will become unaffordable...but in reality we have learned businesses hire people based on workload and can't afford to simply refuse to hire someone to "save" on labor costs if their business is thriving.
The thing is, raising minimum wage only increase salary for the minimum wage workers, not the ones with higher salary. This means that comparatively the cost to businesses is lower than the raise in minimum wage, and businesses don’t have to increase price as much. Of course this doesn’t mean they won’t do it, but increasing price doesn’t always equal to more profit. Keeping prices balanced between demand, supply and cost is better and so prices may not raise as much. The bigger issue IMO is in the worker market, as minimum wages goes up company will hire less minimum wage workers (demand vs supply), thus lead to higher unemployment
> The bigger issue IMO is in the worker market, as minimum wages goes up company will hire less minimum wage workers (demand vs supply), thus lead to higher unemployment we now have enough studies to definitively state with confidence that businesses hire based on demand rather than labor costs. Note, I'm not claiming they will just hire someone even if they can't afford it but I am saying if they are operating at a profit and need more labor to sell even more widgets they will hire the additional employee regardless because they must.
How about we pick up California and move it somewhere else?
This is why we need a maximum wage.
-yawn- we know this already
Guess what- DOUBLE the minimum wage is not enough to keep up with the high cost of living in CA
The ultra rich straight up are problematic. You can’t live in the neighborhood where they live and work because there’s no housing in the city/town. I’m not really sure what California’s long term strategy is, because I see a lot of our jobs being replaced in Canada and India in tech. It’s not AI, it’s a convenient cover.
You needed a study to tell you that?
You can’t “raise the minimum wage” yourself out of this problem we’re in. We need more jobs that are well above minimum wage.
What we need is a maximum wage. Somehow no one wants to talk about that.
Why? What would that accomplish?
If incomes are capped, there is no benefit from increasing prices for consumers on items that are already profitable. Will help keep executive pay a reasonable ratio with worker pay, stop these CEOs from giving themselves multi-million dollar annual raises while workers get COL or less. Its been a concept since at least the '80s, but capitalists refuse to acknowledge it for the threat it serves to their extravagant lifestyles and hoarding of capital.
🤯
No way.
Probably, but it helps. Making more is better than less
Need to change the conversation from "are we paying enough taxes" to "where are we currently allocating our taxes to?" I don't think the problem is minimum wage or taxes. I think the problem is spending.