Welcome to Nevada, California companies

Make this sign bigger.

This morning California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a bill that will raise the minimum wage in California to $15 an hour statewide by 2022. It is the first state to do so. Brown called it economic justice. It is neither economic or justice.

California Labor Federation Executive Secretary-Treasurer Art Pulaski immediate put out a statement via email praising the the new law:

The statement California made today will echo throughout the country. By boosting 6 million workers across the state, we’re saying that all work is valued and all working people have value. No matter your job, you are contributing to the economic success of your company, your community and your nation. By lifting those at the bottom of the economic ladder, we level the playing field for everyone. California is setting all workers on a path out of poverty and restoring the American Dream.

This historic signing is testament to the power working people hold when we stand together to fight for justice. California has once again set the bar for the rest of the country. We’re on the leading age of a movement to change America. The wave of higher wages that starts here today will cascade to other states, bringing with it fresh hope to millions of working people across the country.

Of course, neither he nor Gov. Brown addresses what will happen to those who currently are paid the minimum of $10 an hour who will eventually get $0 per hour business they will be put out of work.

Nevada should double the size of that welcome sign down on the border and put up some more billboards in California inviting companies to move here.

Nevada’s attempt at jacking up the minimum wage — a petition filed in November — quietly fizzled a month ago. It would have raised the minimum wage to $13 an hour.

The problem with raising the minimum wage is that it does not lift more people out of poverty, but rather its net effect is to actually increase the portion of families that are poor and near-poor, according to an analysis by the Heritage Foundation. This is because a few will see higher income, others will have their work hours reduced and some will drop from minimum wage to zero wage due to layoffs and businesses closing their doors — or moving to another state.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that if the federal minimum wage were increased to $10.10 an hour — as proposed by President Obama and others — up to a million workers would lose their jobs. Never mind what $15 an hour would do, as proposed by Bernie Sanders.

If $15 an hour is good, wouldn’t $30 or $100 an hour be even better?

And what happens to those who currently are being paid between $10 and $15 an hour?




24 comments on “Welcome to Nevada, California companies

  1. Doug Ansell says:

    Let the waivers begin!

    Sent from my MacBook Wheel

  2. Bruce Feher says:

    No worries! If Bernie Sanders wins EVERYTHING will be free!

  3. noodle35 says:

    Wrong message! We don’t want any more Californians’ coming to Nevada. The ones that are here already are causing our problems.


    Jim Gregory

    * jim@weststates.org

    Phone: 775-738-8000 x 109

  4. You have point. It is like all those people fleeing over-regulated states but then demand more regulations like that they had back home.

  5. Patrick says:

    I’m sure we’ve had this discussion repeatedly but, if lower wages made for the most successful state, California would be deserted already, and Nevada would be brimming with people.

    The fact is, that minimum wages today, on a real dollar basis, are already drastically LOWER than they were when Reagan was in office. I don’t understand the mentality of people that seem eager to have the bottom rung ground down even more than they already are.

    Lower wages haven’t made Nevada a “haven” for business for a very good reason; there is far more involved in the calculation about what makes businesses decide to bring jobs in than wages. In fact, that’s really a very minor consideration. Which is why California has so much, and Nevada has so little.

  6. What Nevada lacks in wage law, it makes up for in biz taxes.

  7. Steve says:

    Here come the robots! Should make for good paying skilled labor jobs huh? (uhhh, EB-3…..)
    Ouroboros comes to mind.

  8. Rincon says:

    If billionaires can use their economic power to keep a larger slice of the pie, the underclasses will (eventually) use their voting power to get it back…until the upper classes find a way to remove voting power (see Patrick’s list of characteristics for fascists). Then, it’ll be back to the norm of human civilization.

  9. Steve says:

    Enjoy your robot made burger, Rincon.

  10. nyp says:

    Todays’ New York Times:
    “The Affordable Care Act was aimed mainly at giving people better options for buying health insurance on their own. There were widespread predictions that employers would leap at the chance to drop coverage and send workers to fend for themselves. But those predictions were largely wrong. Most companies, and particularly large employers, that offered coverage before the law have stayed committed to providing health insurance. The surprise turnaround adds to an emerging consensus about the contentious health law: It has not upturned the core of the country’s health insurance system, even while insuring millions of low-income people.”

  11. Steve says:

    “Economically, minimum wages may not make sense,” the governor said. “But morally and socially and politically they make every sense, because it binds the community together and makes sure that parents can take care of their kids in a much more satisfactory way.”
    Governor Jerry Brown.

    So it’s a bad idea but it makes him feel good!

  12. nyp says:

    Good article in the FT on the state of academic research on the effects of a minimum wage:


  13. Rincon says:

    The minimum wage is like a band aid for a gaping wound. Not really very useful, but better than nothing for a problem that needs a more comprehensive approach.

  14. Patrick says:

    The discussion has turned to raising minimum wages as a means of getting money into the hands of the lower economic groups BECAUSE the right was been winning the battle for reducing taxes on the wealthy.

    Read Thomas Pickety’s book “Capital in the 21st Century”. Excellent analysis as to how the reduction of taxes, on the wealthy, beginning in the 1980s, impacted income and wealthy inequality in this country. While real incomes have shrunk for the vast majority, the wealthiest continue see incredible gains. And, while the richest continue to see incredible gains, in their incomes, because most of that income is characterized as “capital gains” it is taxed at lower than ever rates.

    Piketty analyzed the changes in minimum wages as well, since the Reagan administration and concluded that “real” minimum wages have decreased by nearly 50% since Reagan was in office, and the current push to raise the minimum wage (in California up to $15 over the next 5 years) wouldn’t even bring that wage up to pre-Reagan era minimum wage.

    At least though, SOME redistribution, that has been absolutely stopped, by the Reagan/Bush tax cuts, can be effectuated, and keep the economy moving a little.

    The best analogy I’ve seen, to describe the economy, and how it works is a poker game.

    When the game begins, and the players have their respective stacks of chips. The more the game goes on, the more the chips become consolidated with fewer players. Eventually, there are only a few players left with chips, and the game ends for everyone.

    The anti minimum wage/anti tax law folks don’t understand that even redistributing the meager amounts involved mean the difference between continuing the game, or ending it for everyone.

  15. Patrick says:

    I don’t know where the quote comes from, but that statement is not consistent with the charts Piketty himself used.


    The charts he used show that both income, and wealthy inequality has risen since the 1930’s in the US.

  16. Steve says:


    Piketty, that’s where the quote came from.

    Page 5, Patrick.
    He’s looking at the possibility that concentration of property might return to pre 1914 levels.

  17. Patrick says:

    Steve, he does say that, but he must be referring to the wealth inequality in Europe because the chart, on page 2 of the article I cited to, shows that, in about 1928 (2 years before the wealth of the top 10% fell drastically) the top 10% in this country, owned approximately 72% of the wealth, and as of 2014 when Piketty wrote his book, the top 10% in this country held approximately 71% of the wealth in this country, which figure was steadily rising.

    That difference could in no way be described as “much less extreme”.

  18. Steve says:

    Must be….I read it several times to be sure. No he is not referring to that at all.
    Its a backtrack on a misstatement (or a statement misrepresented) he made on the subject earlier.
    It is about the possibility of future property ownership becoming concentrated at levels pre 1914.
    The study is long run and cannot be applied to any one party or president.

  19. Patrick says:

    Well, look at the charts. It’s all there. And, to suggest that it’s a backtrack, or a misstatement, or a misrepresentation, I suggest you would need his original statement that was to the contrary.

    And, it has nothing to do with a party or a president, it has to do with policies, mostly tax policies. Which, was the basis for his conclusions from the beginning.

  20. Steve says:

    Coupled with the links provided by Tom and the descriptions of the paper in the abstract header on the source website,
    Your link is the original and the one I found was his update and clarification.

  21. Rincon says:

    Does anyone have an argument with the assertion that if the return on capital is greater than the increase in GDP, then wealth inequality must become greater? If that occurs for a long enough time then, would it not be much like Patrick’s poker game? That appears to have been the case for the last 35 years or so: “…the share of wealth held by the top 0.1% of American households has leapt from about 7% in 1979 to as much as 22% in 2012.” http://worldif.economist.com/article/7/what-if-the-world-introduces-a-piketty-tax-squeezing-the-rich

    Under these circumstances, is the question of whether inequality is less than or greater than it was in the 1930’s very important? Are the Conservatives here actually saying that nothing should be done about this 35 year long trend?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s