Senator John Moorlach SB 1142, scheduled to be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee today, “would provide that a defendant is not liable for statutory damages, costs, or plaintiff’s attorney’s fees for an alleged violation that is corrected within 120 days of service of a demand letter alleging the violation.”
In a letter to Senate Republican Leader Jean Fuller, R-Bakersfield, the state’s legislative counsel said Brown does not have the authority, without legislative approval, to extend beyond 2020 the provisions of Assembly Bill 32, California’s landmark greenhouse gas reduction law.
One immediate result of the hikes has already appeared in Southern California, where the garment industry faces an especially rough road. Sung Won Sohn, former director of apparel company Forever 21 and economist at Cal State Channel Islands, told the Los Angeles Times a veritable “exodus has begun,” with manufacturers already tempted to shift garment production overseas to retreat from the Golden State still further. “The garment industry is gradually shrinking and that trend will likely continue.”
Authored by Assembly member Lorena Gonzalez, AB 1727 would allow any group with as few as 10 independent contractors to act in concert to set the prices and terms of their engagement. This would put a chokehold on small businesses who will be forced to navigate potentially dozens — or even hundreds — of separate bargaining units. Not only would the end result make life difficult for our job creators, but it would make the cost of goods and services rise dramatically for consumers.
The complete lack of public debate over this policy decision harkens back to the smoke-filled rooms of old-time power politics, where the public had little say over what actually happened in the halls of power. And in the rush to shove this measure forward without any deliberation, the state is now forced to bear a policy that will, in all likelihood, do more harm than good to the very people the state is trying to, in theory, help. . . The real shame is that California continues to play with a policy tool that has a proven track record of not working when there are plenty of policy options that do. Pre-kindergarten education is a pricey but proven winner. The Earned Income Tax Credit is another potential option with a proven track record. But these programs cost money and that means either asking for tax hikes or taking money from other uses—options no one in Sacramento seems to be able to stomach.
After years of net losses, moving production out of Los Angeles is necessary for the survival of American Apparel, industry experts said. The company initially considered staying in California and moving to the city of Vernon, according to a person familiar with the discussions who was not authorized to speak publicly. After the state raised the minimum wage, executives began looking at manufacturers in the South, the person said.
Which brings us to Klaus’ major dilemma, which mirrors that of many business owners. The majority of his workers aren’t paid minimum wage. Many have put in years on the job and have specialized skills and training. But if Klaus’ entry-level workers get raises, he’s convinced it’d only be fair to give those who now make just over the eventual minimum wage salary increases, too. . . So he’s estimated resulting wage hikes at the agency’s 31 group homes alone will cost $2.1 million annually.
Organized labor has always counted on Democrats’ support for issues like raising the minimum wage and paid sick leave. But in the new gig economy, run on apps for companies like Uber and TaskRabbit, the very nature of work is changing. And the new tech-driven workplace could put some Democrats at odds with their friends in the labor movement.
Los Angeles workers would be able to earn at least six paid sick days annually — twice the state minimum — under a proposed law that the City Council backed Tuesday.
The trouble with my view is that the White House and Congress want to use the tax code to reward and punish. This enhances their power; relinquishing it reduces their power. We know this from history. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 followed the dictum of lowering rates by broadening the tax base. It was a commendable achievement, a rare example of bipartisanship. President Reagan supported it, as did many Democratic and Republican congressional leaders. It might have, if followed by similar laws, transformed the tax code.
Most prescriptions for boosting growth involve macroeconomic policy: increased government spending, for instance, or lower interest rates. But competition policy has the potential to do the same, by tearing down the barriers that keep companies from entering new markets. That would stimulate business investment in the short run, and productivity in the long run.
By 2015, the Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau says in a new report, employers’ average insurance premiums, which had topped $6 per $100 of payroll in 2003, had dropped to $2.86.
To see why, it’s best to first think of investment in entrepreneurial endeavors like a coin toss. Heads, we earn $100 in capital gains; tails, we lose $100. If there are no taxes on a winning coin toss, then we have to believe that the odds of winning the toss are better than 50% to play the game. . . Let’s add in state taxes for that other wellspring of west coast innovation, Silicon Valley. At California’s top tax bracket of 13.3%, and with Hillary Clinton’s proposed rate of 45% on whatever is left, we get to keep $48 for each heads, and lose $100 for each tails. We need to expect at least a 68% chance of “heads.” And we’re taxed on inflation. If it takes 10 years to cash out, and inflation has boosted the cost of living by 25%, we need to win more than three out of four coin tosses to justify making these kinds of bets!
In many states you can’t so much as get a haircut or have a manicure unless the person performing the service has an occupational license. Last summer, the White House released a report targeting this tangled maze of job-licensing requirements, and saying that trimming the thicket would improve the economy.
However, the state Board of Education seems determined to have a soft “multiple measures” system of accountability that downplays test results, with few consequences for failure. So we may never really know whether LCFF actually meets its purported goal.