Unfortunately when you increase the low wages, the upper workers will suffer. ie the $12, $15, $18 up will see longer periods before another raise is given to them. Mtn View should also coordinate with the neighbor cities. We might want to help out out residents, but the reality is most low wage workers are not from the surrounding areas.

I understand that Jessica's role is to promote the interests of restaurant owners, but I am confused by arguments in this piece that seem to argue for special classifications without much rationale.

With respect to teenage workers, there is no special wage for them now. I'm all for teenagers learning teamwork, leadership, and responsibility, but there are many ways to gain that experience and if they're doing it in a work environment it seems their labor should be compensated fairly, especially as many teenagers are working because of the earnings in the present, not in the future. Is the minimum wage discussion really the place to create a new program that singles out teenage workers?

With respect to tipped vs. non-tipped employees, it seems to me that the responsibility to fairly compensate employees falls on business owners rather than on customers. By relying on tips to increase take-home pay for wait staff, restaurants deflect the responsibility to pay attractive wages. I don't blame local restaurants for this practice, it is a long time practice that occurs throughout the country, but it seems possible to follow the lead of restaurants in other cities that include a line in the bill for increased staffing costs instead of expecting diners to leave tips. Then the employer can offer a fair salary and employees know to expect consistent pay. Why is the restaurant industry unique in expecting consumers to cover employee compensation without reflecting it in prices?

Mountain View residents want to support businesses that treat employees well. In the heart of Silicon Valley, I'm confident that enterprising restaurants can find innovative ways to simultaneously provide good food and good pay.

use birth control. get a roommate or partner. get a one bedroom. live within your means. learn how to cook and freeze left overs. buy some board games and have dinner/game parties.

a $15 an hour wage is very reasonable for employers. it's brought in over several years. gives employers a chance to hire and keep their best workers.

I've noticed that the rent rises in this area are huge, but I wonder if there
is any data on how a raise in the minimum wage compares to the average
rate of rent raise in the area of the average business?

It is more or less, and is it significantly more or less.

I have to wonder if a lot of the complaints about minimum wage rising
do not come from the huge real estate lobby in our area that just wants to
suck up all income it can and understands that when minimum wage goes
up it will affect them most ... that is, looked at another way where is it more
productive for the economy and the community for extra money to go, to
landlords who have seen huge increases in their incomes or to working
people who have no had a real wage increases in decades?

The underlying argument of the Opinion Piece is that since restaurateurs are struggling, they should be subsidized. And the people who should subsidize them are their own employees.

I see a quite different reason for increasing the legal minimum wage: to save the employer who is willing to pay a decent wage from the race-to-the-bottom pursued by less responsible competitors. The task of public policy is to cut short the plea "Well, I have to do it because so many others are."

Every community outlaws some behavior it considers antisocial. That's why we prohibit slavery. That's why we have laws prohibiting child labor, or limiting work hours. A business that can only continue to exist by violating community standards has no business being in business.

What small business needs is not protection from its employees, but the prevention of unfair competition by the unscrupulous.

Paul Berry
> The underlying argument of the Opinion Piece is that since
> restaurateurs are struggling, they should be subsidized.
> And the people who should subsidize them are their own employees.

This comment is not getting enough visibility, and it is absolutely true.
We rationalize that poor people are used to being poor, having low
expectations and cannot do anything about it, so they will subsidize
the country.

Barbara Ehrenreich write an eloquent description of this in the end of
her book "Nickel And Dimed" elaborating on the same idea. It is a
great point.

Here is a paragraph from Wikipedia and excerpt on this:

Web Link

THESIS: The working poor are the major philanthropists of our society.

> Ehrenreich concludes with the argument that all low-wage workers,
> recipients of government or charitable services like welfare, food,
> and health care, are not simply living off the generosity of others.
> Instead, she suggests, we live off their generosity:

>> When someone works for less pay than she can live on ... she has
>> made a great sacrifice for you .... The "working poor" ... are in fact
>> the major philanthropists of our society. They neglect their own
>> children so that the children of others will be cared for; they live in
>> substandard housing so that other homes will be shiny and perfect;
>> they endure privation so that inflation will be low and stock prices high
>> To be a member of the working poor is to be an anonymous donor,
>> a nameless benefactor, to everyone. (p. 221)

>> The author concludes that someday, low-wage workers will rise up
>> and demand to be treated fairly, and when that day comes
>> everyone will be better off