Thursday Midday Brief Discussion Items

Yolo Probations Department "Most Wanted List"

The Sacramento Bee reports:

"The Yolo County Probation Department has added photos and descriptions of its "Most Wanted" fugitive probationers to its Web site."

And as if that did not sound strange enough, go to the actual page, you have people wanted for crimes such as "Unauthorized Possession of a Controlled Substance." You have a few wanted for spousal abuse, several substance abuses, and burglary. Not to make light of these crimes.

http://www.yolocounty.org/org/probation/Most-Wanted/Default.htm

CBS 13 Covers the Target Issue

The other night, CBS 13 in Sacramento had a feature on Target. Here's a link to the video of that news story:

http://www.cbs13.com/video/?id=14450@kovr.dayport.com

A few thoughts on Rifkin's Living Wage Column

Rifkin argues against a minimum wage citing research that suggests that minimum wage does more harm than good. He writes:

Far more destructive would be a "living wage" in Davis, where the floor, according to Lamar, would be $10 per hour.

Let us put this into perspective. In January california's minimum wage will increase to $7.50 per hour and in January of 2008 it goes up to $8.00 per hour. Davis being much more expensive to live than a lot of other places it is not outrageous to suggest that it might have a higher minimum wage than the state level--especially for large employers who are more likely to be able to absorb the cost.

Rifkin writes: "I know a nursery owner who hired part-time workers to water her plants. When the California minimum wage was last increased, she was forced to buy an automated irrigation system to do that task instead. Now, no one has a job watering those plants, thanks to our high minimum wage."

This is a good point, but it also illuminates the reason why the new living wage should not be universal. Target provides us with a good example.

In 2008 or beyond when Target in Davis opens they project somewhere around 250 jobs at $8 per hour. How many fewer employees are they going to hire if they have to pay $10 per hour? They may hire fewer, but that's by no means a certainty. But even if they hire fewer, it would be nice if the people who they did hire could actually reside in the city of Davis and therefore redistribute most of their income into the city's economy. Whereas if they had to live in the cheaper West Sacramento or Dixon, a lot of that money would escape into other municipalities. That would seem to be a win-win for Davis and Target and may actually result in more earnings for Target down the line.

If Councilman Heystek's ambition is to help low-paid workers who are trying to support their families, he should forget his living wage ordinance and push for a more generous EITC.

Perhaps Rifkin forgets that Heystek has almost as little power to enact an EITC as City Councilmember as Rifkin does as a columnist. So if Heystek is to help low-income families, he has to do things that are actually within his power.

Unlike most welfare schemes, the EITC does not encourage idleness.

And neither does a living wage which obviously relies on the individual performing long hours of work.

I do not see the living wage proposal placed on large employers in Davis being a huge depresser of the job market. Rather I see this as an opportunity for the city to keep more of its employees residing in the city limits which will improve revenue not only for the city but also for its businesses.