Can your bottom line afford another tax increase? Would you be concerned if the tax bite was more than $2.1 billion, with a 'B,' dollars? Does California need to be saddled with another 'dubious distinction'?
Let's start with some facts, and then let me offer some opinions.
FACT: AB 48 by Assemblywoman Sally Lieber of Mountain View/San Jose passed the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee on a 6 to 2 party line vote May 2. It is headed to the ironically named appropriations committee.
FACT: The bill, as written, would raise the minimum wage statewide in California to $7.75 per hour, starting in 2007.
FACT: AB 48 would give our state the dubious distinction of having the highest minimum wage in the nation.
FACT: California was ranked "Worst among the states as a place for business" by a January 2005 survey of 458 CEOs nationwide. The survey was reported by the Associated Press and Chief Executive Magazine. Texas, Nevada and Florida were the most business friendly according to the report.
How does this affect you as a business owner or an employer in Carlsbad?
For the answer, let me offer some opinions.
In the most straight-forward, non-inflammatory language I can offer, I believe business is under assault. We have a bulls-eye painted on our corporations, our shops and shareholders.
There is a veritable laundry list of job killing bills in Sacramento. Living wage ordinances are sprouting up around the state and county like weeds and, tax hikes and fees specifically targeted at businesses are trying to raise billions of dollars on our backs. For example, AB 48 is estimated to cost employers $2.1 billion, according to the California Chamber of Commerce.
The golden goose is going to rust at this rate. No wonder C.J. Buck took his knife company to Idaho. No wonder Scripps Institute is negotiating to build a multi-million dollar research center in Florida.
I am simply amazed at the tortured logic offered by some politicians on this subject. Consider our large municipal neighbor to the south of us. You know them, they are openly considering bankruptcy. Several members of the city council are under indictment and the mayor just threw in the towel saying he "lacks leadership." They have a $1.3 billion dollar pension deficit and the newly unveiled city budget calls for the elimination of more than 350 jobs and still projects a deficit in excess of $50 million.
In spite of these sobering realities, their elected officials pass a living wage ordinance that will mandate certain employers to pay $12 per hour to employees who work for companies that hold city contracts.
San Diego now joins more than 116 other local governments nationwide that have passed similar laws.
Yet, a 1999 Federal Reserve Board of San Francisco study and a 2000 University of New Hampshire Center for Employment Policies survey of more than 336 labor specialty economists both reached similar conclusions: Living wage ordinances result in job losses. Well, imagine that.
Job losses increase public benefits. An increase in public benefits will eventually raise unemployment compensation insurance rates for employers. Higher taxes and fees create an unfavorable business climate and stifles job creation. Businesses will relocate to more favorable economic locations, taking jobs, payrolls and economic opportunity with them. How black and white can it be?
I think a simple parable will also illustrate a more preferred solution to the long-term problems associated with the living wage issue.
A father once took his two young children fishing. They enjoyed good luck and soon their boat was full of fish. They returned to the docks and sold their catch. The father paid both his children for helping him.
The first child took the money, went into the village and spent it all. It was gone in a few days. The second child took the money, thanked the father, and said "Dad, will you teach me how to build a boat and make nets? I'd like to learn how to become a successful fisherman. That way I can provide for my own family some day."
If a service employee in a traditional living wage classified job is laid off, they have received little long-term benefit, at best. Yet, if an employee in a responsible private sector job receives employer-paid job training and/or college level educational benefits paid for by their supportive employer, they have acquired a skill-set that will more likely survive a layoff or the short-term public handout.
Responsible private sector initiatives, like those supported by Chamber members, teach long sufficiency for interested employees, instead of short-term illusory gains.
Now, to its good credit, Carlsbad is not considering a living wage ordinance to the best of my knowledge. However, the state does have its hand out and thanks to Assemblywoman Sally Lieber and her AB 48, your employee costs are in danger of rising significantly.
It's time local businesses put the oppressive hands of big brother, and big sister, in Sacramento back in their own pocket.
Let's start with some facts, and then let me offer some opinions.
FACT: AB 48 by Assemblywoman Sally Lieber of Mountain View/San Jose passed the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee on a 6 to 2 party line vote May 2. It is headed to the ironically named appropriations committee.
FACT: The bill, as written, would raise the minimum wage statewide in California to $7.75 per hour, starting in 2007.
FACT: AB 48 would give our state the dubious distinction of having the highest minimum wage in the nation.
FACT: California was ranked "Worst among the states as a place for business" by a January 2005 survey of 458 CEOs nationwide. The survey was reported by the Associated Press and Chief Executive Magazine. Texas, Nevada and Florida were the most business friendly according to the report.
How does this affect you as a business owner or an employer in Carlsbad?
For the answer, let me offer some opinions.
In the most straight-forward, non-inflammatory language I can offer, I believe business is under assault. We have a bulls-eye painted on our corporations, our shops and shareholders.
There is a veritable laundry list of job killing bills in Sacramento. Living wage ordinances are sprouting up around the state and county like weeds and, tax hikes and fees specifically targeted at businesses are trying to raise billions of dollars on our backs. For example, AB 48 is estimated to cost employers $2.1 billion, according to the California Chamber of Commerce.
The golden goose is going to rust at this rate. No wonder C.J. Buck took his knife company to Idaho. No wonder Scripps Institute is negotiating to build a multi-million dollar research center in Florida.
I am simply amazed at the tortured logic offered by some politicians on this subject. Consider our large municipal neighbor to the south of us. You know them, they are openly considering bankruptcy. Several members of the city council are under indictment and the mayor just threw in the towel saying he "lacks leadership." They have a $1.3 billion dollar pension deficit and the newly unveiled city budget calls for the elimination of more than 350 jobs and still projects a deficit in excess of $50 million.
In spite of these sobering realities, their elected officials pass a living wage ordinance that will mandate certain employers to pay $12 per hour to employees who work for companies that hold city contracts.
San Diego now joins more than 116 other local governments nationwide that have passed similar laws.
Yet, a 1999 Federal Reserve Board of San Francisco study and a 2000 University of New Hampshire Center for Employment Policies survey of more than 336 labor specialty economists both reached similar conclusions: Living wage ordinances result in job losses. Well, imagine that.
Job losses increase public benefits. An increase in public benefits will eventually raise unemployment compensation insurance rates for employers. Higher taxes and fees create an unfavorable business climate and stifles job creation. Businesses will relocate to more favorable economic locations, taking jobs, payrolls and economic opportunity with them. How black and white can it be?
I think a simple parable will also illustrate a more preferred solution to the long-term problems associated with the living wage issue.
A father once took his two young children fishing. They enjoyed good luck and soon their boat was full of fish. They returned to the docks and sold their catch. The father paid both his children for helping him.
The first child took the money, went into the village and spent it all. It was gone in a few days. The second child took the money, thanked the father, and said "Dad, will you teach me how to build a boat and make nets? I'd like to learn how to become a successful fisherman. That way I can provide for my own family some day."
If a service employee in a traditional living wage classified job is laid off, they have received little long-term benefit, at best. Yet, if an employee in a responsible private sector job receives employer-paid job training and/or college level educational benefits paid for by their supportive employer, they have acquired a skill-set that will more likely survive a layoff or the short-term public handout.
Responsible private sector initiatives, like those supported by Chamber members, teach long sufficiency for interested employees, instead of short-term illusory gains.
Now, to its good credit, Carlsbad is not considering a living wage ordinance to the best of my knowledge. However, the state does have its hand out and thanks to Assemblywoman Sally Lieber and her AB 48, your employee costs are in danger of rising significantly.
It's time local businesses put the oppressive hands of big brother, and big sister, in Sacramento back in their own pocket.