Connect with us

Politics

Proposition 32 was just rejected. In blue California, why did the minimum-wage boost fail?

Published

on

Proposition 32 was just rejected. In blue California, why did the minimum-wage boost fail?

Californians, who have historically supported efforts to raise the minimum wage, were not swayed this time around.

After two weeks of postelection uncertainty, Proposition 32, the initiative to increase the state’s minimum wage to $18 an hour, was defeated by a narrow margin.

The rejection was “a pretty poignant sign of the times in a state like California,” said John Kabateck, state director of the National Federation of Independent Business, which had urged voters to vote no. “It is certainly sending a message that Californians across the political spectrum are fed up with higher costs and greater uncertainty on Main Street.”

Proposition 32 was declared defeated after falling just short, with 49.2% voting “yes.” The Associated Press called the race on Tuesday evening.

The outcome was the latest indication of a rightward shift in the reliably blue state, which saw a number of surprising results from the Nov. 5 election. Voters overwhelmingly supported a ballot measure to undo a decade of progressive criminal justice reform, and rejected an initiative that would have banned forced prison labor.

Advertisement

Opponents and economists said that by striking down the proposed minimum-wage increase, voters signaled that they were nervous about businesses raising prices to offset their added labor expenses. The prospect of paying more for consumer goods was especially unappealing after years of high inflation, which has led to a persistent feeling among many people that they’re on shaky financial footing.

“Arguments about the minimum wage are always very emotional,” said Till von Wachter, an economics professor at UCLA. “Economic issues are top of mind right now, and that can lead to a rejection of a higher minimum wage.”

Voters were closely divided on the proposition, which would have raised the minimum wage to $17 an hour immediately for larger employers and to $18 an hour starting in January. Smaller employers with 25 or fewer employees would have been required to do the same but at a slower rate: $17 an hour next year and $18 an hour in 2026.

The initiative received support in counties including Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and all nine that make up the San Francisco Bay Area. Higher-income counties were more likely to have voted yes, according to a Times review of voter results, although Orange and San Diego counties voted no.

California already has one of the highest minimum wages in the country, trailing just the District of Columbia and Washington. The state’s minimum wage has doubled since 2010, most recently increasing to $16 from $15.50 in January.

Advertisement

Many cities — including Los Angeles, West Hollywood, Santa Monica and Pasadena — have even higher minimums. Meanwhile the federal minimum wage has sat at $7.25 for 15 years.

As such, voters might have felt that another wage hike was unnecessary, said Chris Thornberg, an economist who founded Beacon Economics, a research and consulting firm in Los Angeles. The outcome was in part a reflection of the overall swing to the right nationwide, he said, and also about a sense of “fairness.”

“As you continue to push the minimum wage up, people are less empathetic,” he said. “The California public is at that point where they think this is just not fair to the rest of us.”

“Enough is enough. The state’s voters continue to support so-called progressive policies, but are drawing the line when it impacts their cost of living or quality of life.”

— Jot Condie, president and chief executive of the California Restaurant Assn.

Advertisement

In practice, the effects of raising the minimum wage on inflation and on unemployment are complex and hotly debated.

Supporters of Proposition 32 argued that increasing the minimum wage stimulates the economy, improves the standard of living for lower-income workers and reduces employee turnover. A new standard, they said, was necessary to cope with the state’s exorbitant cost of living.

The campaign estimated that more than 2 million California workers stood to benefit from the measure, which was spearheaded by millionaire investor and anti-poverty activist Joe Sanberg.

“The fight for higher wages and economic dignity for millions of California workers doesn’t end here — we’ll continue until every California worker earns enough to live and thrive,” Sanberg said in a statement Tuesday evening. “While today’s outcome was not what we expected, we are hopeful for the work ahead.”

Advertisement

Opponents said the measure was bad for consumers — and for workers. They worried companies would pass on the extra labor costs to customers through higher product prices, and would try to save money by laying off staff, slashing employee hours and replacing workers with automation.

“It was a very easy call to vote no on it,” said Bill Bender, 70, a restaurant operations consultant from San José. “It’s too much, too fast for the industry to absorb.”

California had a recent real-world case study in raising the minimum wage to consider, which may have factored into voters’ decision-making: In April, the state’s fast-food workers saw their pay jump to a minimum of $20 an hour, an increase established by Assembly Bill 1228.

Many cashiers, line and prep cooks, counter attendants and baristas saw as much as a 25% raise overnight thanks to the new law, which applies to California fast-food workers employed by any chain with more than 60 locations nationwide, and covers corporate-owned and franchised locations.

Even before it kicked in, fast-food giants including Chipotle, McDonald’s, Starbucks, Jack in the Box and Shake Shack warned that they were planning to raise menu prices as a result, leaving customers to eat the cost.

Advertisement

“Fast-food consumers are very frustrated by the price increases that they’re seeing,” said Jot Condie, president and chief executive of the California Restaurant Assn., which opposed Proposition 32. “They were just connecting the dots and saying, ‘This $18-an-hour minimum wage is going to increase prices across the board.’”

A McDonald's in Azusa

A McDonald’s in Azusa. The company warned it would raise prices after California’s fast-food minimum wage hike took effect in April.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Michaela Mendelsohn operates six El Pollo Loco locations in Los Angeles and Ventura counties. She believed that raising the state’s minimum wage would have led to a jump in prices, but said she supported Proposition 32 because it would have narrowed the gap between what she and other fast-food operators are required to pay their employees and what non-fast-food companies pay.

Since the state moved to $20 an hour for fast-food workers, Mendelsohn said transactions at her six stores are down 5% to 8% from a year ago and she has trimmed total labor hours by 8% to 10%.

Advertisement

David Neumark, a UC Irvine economist and national expert on minimum wages and their economic effects, said he was surprised by the outcome and that it was hard to pinpoint a single factor for the measure’s defeat.

His research over the years has shown there’s an economic tradeoff in pushing up the minimum wage: Some lower-income workers benefit from increased pay, but overall jobs are reduced as employers cut back due to higher costs, which hurts the financial well-being of the working poor and those with fewer skills.

Although it’s a commonly accepted theory that a boost in the minimum wage could lead to job loss, von Wachter of UCLA said that isn’t always the case.

“The argument that higher wages lead to lower employment does not have a lot of evidence going for it,” he said. “Instead, in situations where employers have some market power, higher minimum wages can raise employment.”

California voters are heavily Democratic and a high minimum wage generally aligns with left-wing values, but voters on both sides of the aisle didn’t adhere to typical party-line trends when it came to Proposition 32.

Advertisement

Randy Jeffs, a Republican from Irvine, said he didn’t vote for a presidential candidate last week. But he did vote yes on Proposition 32 after calculating that a worker paid at the higher rate would still only make $37,440 a year on a full-time, 40-hour-a-week schedule.

“If prices rise a little to pay for an $18-an-hour minimum wage, so be it,” Jeffs, 70, said. “If the wealth is to be spread about, what better way than to those willing to learn [and] work?”

But in the end, most voters decided that “enough is enough,” Condie said.

“The state’s voters continue to support so-called progressive policies,” he said, “but are drawing the line when it impacts their cost of living or quality of life.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

GOP congressman charges Biden administration's foreign policy 'left the world in a worse off place'

Published

on

GOP congressman charges Biden administration's foreign policy 'left the world in a worse off place'

EXCLUSIVE: Republican Rep. Mike Lawler of New York, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is charging that overseas conflicts escalated under the Biden administration.

Secretary of State Anthony Blinken testified before the committee in December after a report on the administration’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, where he was pressed to “take responsibility” for the widespread conflicts that erupted across the globe following the deadly event.

Speaking with Fox News Digital on Monday, Lawler delved into the report that claimed the Biden administration “has left the world in a worse off place than it inherited it” — beginning with the withdrawal from Afghanistan.

“The report on the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan is his legacy and that of the Biden administration, because in my estimation, it’s set about a series of events around the globe that have left us in the most precarious place since World War Two, starting with that disastrous withdrawal in Afghanistan that resulted in the death of 13 U.S. service members,” Lawler told Fox News Digital in an exclusive interview.

NEW REPORT WARNS OF GROWING NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT TO U.S. AS CHINA BUILDS AI: ‘SIGNIFICANT AND CONCERNING’

Advertisement

Representative Mike Lawler, a Republican from New York, during a news conference at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, March 6, 2024. (Tierney L. Cross)

The congressman detailed several tragic events under the Biden administration that followed the Afghanistan withdrawal, such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Oct. 7 terrorist attack in Israel, threats in the Indo-Pacific from China, and the “illicit” oil trade between China and Iran that Lawler says is “funding terrorism.”

EXPERTS WARN SYRIAN REBEL VICTORY POSES ‘WILDLY COMPLEX’ NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT: ‘WHO KNOWS WHAT’S NEXT?’

“This administration has left the world in a worse off place than it inherited it. And that, in my view, is the legacy of the Biden-Harris administration and that of Secretary Blinken,” the New York Republican said.

Lawler added that while national security has appeared in the most “precarious” position since WW2, foreign policy will soon look different under the incoming Trump administration.

Advertisement
photo collage of 13 service members killed at Abbey Gate, Kabul, on display on Capitol HIll

A sign displaying photos and names of the 13 service members killed in a terrorist attack at Abbey Gate outside Kabul’s Hamid Karzai International Airport is seen during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol on Sept. 9, 2024 in Washington, DC.  (Kent Nishimura)

“I think President Trump obviously had four years in which there was greater peace and prosperity around the globe. And the difference between Biden and Trump is that Biden is unable to stop conflicts. Trump is willing to act,” Lawler told Fox. “When you are strong, when your adversaries acknowledge and understand that you are willing to act and strike. They think twice about it.”

Lawler also said that he thinks “President Trump will be a very strong leader when it comes to foreign policy, when it comes to bringing these conflicts to an end.”

Trump closeup shot at podium

President-elect Donald Trump speaks at AmericaFest, Sunday, Dec. 22, 2024, in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Rick Scuteri)

Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., will serve as chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee next Congress, where Lawler says there will be “a lot of the focus is going to be on reauthorizing the State Department operations,” such as how the agency programs operate and how its funds are used.

“I think, obviously, with President Trump coming in, the foreign policy of the United States is going to change,” Lawler said of the incoming administration. “It is going to be much stronger, much more unforgiving on our adversaries. And certainly seek to bring these conflicts to an end.”

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

“Most people my age just kind of scribble.” Signatures were a sticking point for young California voters this year

Published

on

“Most people my age just kind of scribble.” Signatures were a sticking point for young California voters this year

More than a month after voting by mail in the presidential election, South Los Angeles resident Taylor Johnson learned that his vote had not been counted because election workers had taken issue with the way he signed his name on the ballot envelope.

The elections office told Johnson that his ballot signature didn’t match another signature they had on file. Johnson wasn’t sure which signature that was, but he knew it would have looked different: After printing his name for years, he perfected his cursive signature only a few months ago.

“Most people my age just kind of scribble,” said Johnson, 20, who works as an administrative assistant at a medical imaging clinic.

For young Americans who rarely sign anything beyond a paper receipt or a coffee shop iPad, a written signature just doesn’t mean much anymore — except when voting by mail, when a signature is critical to determining whether a mail ballot is counted.

Advertisement

In California, voters younger than 25 made up 10% of the November electorate, but had nearly 3 in 10 of the ballots set aside for signature issues, according to an analysis by the voter data firm Political Data Inc. More than half of the state’s ballots with signature issues were from voters younger than 35.

California generally verifies the identities of mail voters through their signatures. As many as three elections workers scrutinize each ballot envelope to ensure the signature matches the voter’s registration paperwork or driver’s license, and set aside envelopes with missing or mismatched signatures.

Election officials are required to notify those voters and give them an opportunity to fix the error.

In the November election, nearly 200,000 ballots were flagged for signature issues across California’s 58 counties. Nearly 6 in 10 were eventually counted through a process known as “curing,” in which a voter can fill out a form to attest that the flawed ballot was theirs, while more than 83,000 were not counted.

In a survey of voters whose ballots were flagged because of signature problems, 40% of respondents said their signature looked different than it used to, another 40% said they used a sloppy, incomplete or casual signature, “like one I use signing a restaurant bill,” and 12% said they forgot to sign the envelope entirely.

Advertisement

“When you’re dealing with a state with 22 million voters, and 16 million sending their ballots in with signatures, there’s a multitude of ways that some little nonsensical thing can create a problem,” said Paul Mitchell, a vice president at PDI who conducted the survey.

Orange County registrar of voters Bob Page recommended that voters look at the signature on their driver’s license before signing their ballots and should consider sending in a new registration form if their signature has changed. He said Orange County plans to send forms to 12,000 voters in hopes of getting a new signature on file.

“We know that signatures change over time,” Page said. “And we know that the way people sign at the little pad with their finger at the DMV is not how they really sign their names.”

Mitchell’s analysis found that in the state’s six most competitive congressional races, 85% of Republicans and Democrats whose ballots were flagged for signature issues were able to cure their ballots and have their votes counted, a 25-point jump over the statewide averages.

The Republican and Democratic parties mounted armies of volunteers and staff members to go door to door in the most competitive U.S. House of Representatives districts.

Advertisement

In the Central Valley, where Democrat Adam Gray narrowly bested GOP Rep. John Duarte, the number of ballots cured by Democrats and Republicans far outstripped the 187-vote margin of the race.

Campaign volunteers and workers went door to door in the districts, trying to talk to voters in person and explaining how to complete the ballot paperwork, in some cases helping them navigate scanning in, printing out and returning the forms.

Mitchell found that voters with no party preference had a far lower rate of return than voters affiliated with the Republican and Democratic parties in competitive swing districts, suggesting that each party was focusing on their most loyal voters first.

In less competitive districts, voters were more on their own.

Cassidy Crotwell, 22, registered to vote during an economics class in her senior year at El Toro High School in Orange County. Everyone in the class registered on their phones, she said, and she didn’t sign anything.

Advertisement

Crotwell learned about the issue with her November ballot signature through a text message from the Orange County Registrar’s office. Republican Rep. Young Kim, who represents her Congressional district, easily won reelection, and neither party mounted a meaningful curing operation there; no other groups or campaigns contacted Crotwell, she said.

She assumed the elections office had a signature on file from when she got her driver’s license at age 16, but her signature is “a little more defined now,” she said — the result of a job in human resources where she signs a lot of paperwork. She didn’t end up fixing her ballot but plans to update her signature the next time she goes to the DMV.

Johnson, the South L.A. voter, did not fix his ballot, either. By the time he learned his vote hadn’t been counted, the presidential election had been over for weeks.

In the 2026 midterms, Johnson said, he’s going to vote in person — no signature required.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen hospitalized after he was bucked off a horse

Published

on

Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen hospitalized after he was bucked off a horse

Nebraska’s Republican Gov. Jim Pillen was injured and transported to a hospital on Sunday after he was bucked off a horse.

Pillen, 68, is expected to be hospitalized for several days.

The first-term governor was riding horses with his family when he was thrown off a new horse and suffered injuries, according to the governor’s office.

ILLEGAL MIGRANTS IN NEBRASKA TOWN BRINGING ‘STRESS’ TO SCHOOLS, PUBLIC SAFETY

Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen was injured on Sunday after he was bucked off a horse while riding with his family. (Kenneth Ferriera/Lincoln Journal Star via AP, File)

Advertisement

Pillen was rushed to Columbus Community Hospital in Columbus, Nebraska, before he was transported, out of an abundance of caution, to the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha.

“The Governor is alert and is in continuous touch with his team,” Pillen’s office said.

DRONE MISHAP DURING ORLANDO HOLIDAY AERIAL SHOW SENDS CHILD TO HOSPITAL

Jim Pillen

Gov. Pillen is expected to be hospitalized for several days, though the severity of his injuries was not revealed. (AP Photo/Phelan M. Ebenhack, File)

Pillen’s office did not detail what injuries he suffered or the severity.

The GOP governor was elected in 2022, running in the gubernatorial election that year because former Gov. Pete Ricketts, also a Republican, was term-limited. 

Advertisement

Pillen then appointed Ricketts to the U.S. Senate to fill the seat vacated by former Republican Sen. Ben Sasse, who resigned in 2023 to become president of the University of Florida. Sasse has since stepped down as the university’s president.

Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen

Pillen was elected as Nebraska’s governor in 2022. (Getty Images)

Pillen worked as a veterinarian and owned a livestock operation before he was elected as governor.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending