![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Ballot Propositions - Nov 2024 - Part 3
Oct. 25th, 2024 08:06 amI'm going through the ballot propositions on the ballot here in the 2024 general election. See part 1 of this series for a few links on how props work and my thoughts about Props 2 & 3; and part 2 of this series for Props 4, 5, and 6. Here are my thoughts on the next few.
Prop 32 would raise the minimum wage state-wide in California. Employers with 26+ employees would have to pay a minimum of $17 starting immediately and $18 on January 1, 2025. For employers with 25 or fewer employees, a minimum of $17 applies starting January 1, 2025, rising to $18 on January 1, 2026.
I've blogged many times about minimum wage and how it's generally too low. From reading my past thoughts you might be surprised that I'm leaning against Prop 32. This has to do with the weaknesses of citizen led initiatives. Often they embody a worthy idea but with a flawed implementation.
This raise to $17-18 is not huge. While you might be thinking about the federal minimum wage, which has been unchanged at $7.25/hr for 15 years, California's minwage is already much higher. Currently the statewide minimum is $16, which took effect January 1, 2024. For fast-food workers a higher rate of $20 took effect April 1. Source: State of California Department of Industrial Relations.
While the statewide minwage is already high compared to the (outdated) federal minimum, cities and counties are free to require higher wages. In my city of Sunnyvale it rose to $18.55 at the start of the year. In neighboring Mountain View it's $18.75 this year, rising to $19.20 on January 1, 2025.
To me the flaw in raising the statewide rate again is that it's not necessarily appropriate everywhere in the state. Sunnyvale and Mountain View are high-cost areas. Many businesses were already having to pay nearly as much due to labor market conditions. But what about areas where costs of living are much less expensive? $17-18 might be too expensive for employers in such areas and unnecessary for employees. I prefer to see statewide laws developed through the legislature's deliberative process, informed by professional input from government agencies such as the Department of Industrial Relations, with cities and counties able to adjust as necessary for local conditions. That's a better way to legislate labor policy that's fair for all stakeholders than asking the broad electorate to make a strict yea-or-nay vote on an overly simple solution to complex policy.
A key rent-control law, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, was passed in 1995. It placed significant restrictions on which properties local governments can even subject to rent control. One key restriction is that no building built after February, 1995 can be rent-controlled. Nor can any single-family home. And no limit can be placed on the rent increase when a new tenant signs. (Allegedly landlords try to drive out older tenants of rent-controlled properties so they can reprice at market rates.) That 1995 date was not set to be indexed... so today, all condos built within the past 29.75 years are exempt from rent control. That's ridiculous. Prop 33 repeals Costa-Hawkins so local governments have more latitude to enact modern policies that serve their residents.
This bill defines "CERTAIN HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS" so that it includes exactly one provider. One. It's the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. It's not any insurance company. The ACA required insurance companies only spend 80% of their revenues on patient care. The people who wrote this measure know damn well who they targeted. Prop 34 is a punitive attack from opponents of Prop 33 to punish an organization, AHF, that was a big supporter of Prop 33. Regardless of what you think of Prop 33, this kind of retaliation through the ballot box is an example of the worst kind of use of California's ballot proposition system. Just say NO. Vote NO.
Prop 32: Raise the Minimum Wage: Weak No.
Prop 32 is the first measure on this ballot that's a citizen initiative— meaning it was written and qualified for the ballot by private citizens, as opposed to bond measures and constitutional amendments which are approved by the legislature first then must be put to voters for final approval. Citizen led initiatives often have problems. I'll address that in a moment.Prop 32 would raise the minimum wage state-wide in California. Employers with 26+ employees would have to pay a minimum of $17 starting immediately and $18 on January 1, 2025. For employers with 25 or fewer employees, a minimum of $17 applies starting January 1, 2025, rising to $18 on January 1, 2026.
I've blogged many times about minimum wage and how it's generally too low. From reading my past thoughts you might be surprised that I'm leaning against Prop 32. This has to do with the weaknesses of citizen led initiatives. Often they embody a worthy idea but with a flawed implementation.
This raise to $17-18 is not huge. While you might be thinking about the federal minimum wage, which has been unchanged at $7.25/hr for 15 years, California's minwage is already much higher. Currently the statewide minimum is $16, which took effect January 1, 2024. For fast-food workers a higher rate of $20 took effect April 1. Source: State of California Department of Industrial Relations.
While the statewide minwage is already high compared to the (outdated) federal minimum, cities and counties are free to require higher wages. In my city of Sunnyvale it rose to $18.55 at the start of the year. In neighboring Mountain View it's $18.75 this year, rising to $19.20 on January 1, 2025.
To me the flaw in raising the statewide rate again is that it's not necessarily appropriate everywhere in the state. Sunnyvale and Mountain View are high-cost areas. Many businesses were already having to pay nearly as much due to labor market conditions. But what about areas where costs of living are much less expensive? $17-18 might be too expensive for employers in such areas and unnecessary for employees. I prefer to see statewide laws developed through the legislature's deliberative process, informed by professional input from government agencies such as the Department of Industrial Relations, with cities and counties able to adjust as necessary for local conditions. That's a better way to legislate labor policy that's fair for all stakeholders than asking the broad electorate to make a strict yea-or-nay vote on an overly simple solution to complex policy.
Prop 33: Allow Localities to Expand Rent Control: Yes.
Rent control can be a divisive issue. Some localities in California have rent control. Whether to have rent control, and the specifics of the limits it entails, are decided at the local level. I.e., your city decides if, and how, there's rent control in your city. This measure does not change that fundamental fact. It does not enact rent control anywhere; it only changes the laws that limit what cities are able to do.A key rent-control law, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, was passed in 1995. It placed significant restrictions on which properties local governments can even subject to rent control. One key restriction is that no building built after February, 1995 can be rent-controlled. Nor can any single-family home. And no limit can be placed on the rent increase when a new tenant signs. (Allegedly landlords try to drive out older tenants of rent-controlled properties so they can reprice at market rates.) That 1995 date was not set to be indexed... so today, all condos built within the past 29.75 years are exempt from rent control. That's ridiculous. Prop 33 repeals Costa-Hawkins so local governments have more latitude to enact modern policies that serve their residents.
Prop 34: Slap Punitive Restrictions on the AIDS Healthcare Foundation: HELL NO.
The official title of this proposition is "RESTRICTS SPENDING OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG REVENUES BY CERTAIN HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS." It would required these "CERTAIN HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS" to spend 98% of their revenues from a federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care. Putting governance on healthcare providers to ensure they spend most of their money on caring for patients seems like a worthy cause, doesn't it? Don't be fooled.This bill defines "CERTAIN HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS" so that it includes exactly one provider. One. It's the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. It's not any insurance company. The ACA required insurance companies only spend 80% of their revenues on patient care. The people who wrote this measure know damn well who they targeted. Prop 34 is a punitive attack from opponents of Prop 33 to punish an organization, AHF, that was a big supporter of Prop 33. Regardless of what you think of Prop 33, this kind of retaliation through the ballot box is an example of the worst kind of use of California's ballot proposition system. Just say NO. Vote NO.
