ListNook

rtemple01 Mar 20, 2026 +150

It's a little deep in the article, but this is the county that Oakland, CA is in, located across the bay from San Francisco.

150

turikk Mar 20, 2026 +77

Any good MythBuster knows where this is

77

lacegem Mar 20, 2026 +54

The Alameda County Sheriff's Bomb Range deserves to be an honorary MythBuster for how often it was on the show.

54

footballsquishy Mar 21, 2026 +6

Fun fact, they are extremely proud of being part of the show. My dad has done some work for them before and it is literally one of the things they will mention to you just randomly. My dad already knew it, because of course he used to watch the show while it was still actually airing on Discovery, but it was pretty funny. Unfortunately as far as I know their patch does not contain any references to the show.

6

Smart_Ass_Dave Mar 20, 2026 +18

This is Star Trek IV erasure and I will not stand for it.

18

Lobster_fest Mar 21, 2026 +1

There's an antiques fair on the airstrip on the first Sunday of every month. Hundreds and hundreds of tents with everything you can imagine: huge pieces of carved wood furniture, vintage sportswear, coinage, records, weapons, military gear - and lining the outside are food trucks of all kinds. A must see if youre in the east bay at the time. Plan to spend a day.

1

A_Refill_of_Mr_Pibb Mar 21, 2026 +3

Shout out to Ole's Waffle House. They're a favorite.

3

CommanderArcher Mar 20, 2026 -11

Is it really "buried" if it's not really relevant in the first place?

-11

fireeight Mar 20, 2026 +18

Base wage versus cost of living in an area isn't relevant? Interesting.

18

rice_not_wheat Mar 20, 2026 +5

Considering it's one of the most expensive metros in the country, it's extremely relevant.

5

rtemple01 Mar 20, 2026 +5

It's relevant as the cost of living varies by location, and so should the base wage.

5

Davey914 Mar 20, 2026 +306

The wage increase would be implemented gradually. Large businesses with over one hundred employees and more than a billion in annual revenue would need to get to $30 by 2030. Businesses with twenty-five or fewer employees would have a full decade to get there.

306

Far_Radish7752 Mar 20, 2026 +56

More from the OP article: >Right now, the majority of Alameda County workers do not earn the cost of living. A 'Living Wage calculator' from MIT shows that one person in a two-parent, two-child household must earn over forty dollars an hour to cover rent, groceries, childcare, and other expenses. >The current minimum wage in Oakland is just over $17. The federal minimum wage has been seven dollars and fifty cents since 2009. Saru Jayaraman is the president of One Fair Wage. She said last year seven states launched campaigns to increase their minimum wage to twenty five dollars an hour or more. >"I've heard from so many working people across California, across the country, they tell us, you know, I work three jobs. What has democracy done for me? Why is democracy worth saving? And we have to prove to them that democracy can deliver on the issue they keep telling us is the most important thing, their ability to survive." >Now that the measure has been filed, organizers have 180 days to gather enough signatures to get it on the November ballot. >If the measure doesn’t pass, annual wage increases would reflect “the prior calendar year’s increase, if any, in the Consumer Price Index for urban wage earners and clerical workers for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA metropolitan statistical area.” If it does pass, the measure won't go into effect until June 2027.

56

Cicero912 Mar 20, 2026 +11

> one person in a two parent, two child household While im all in favor of raising the minimum wage, using this as the basis for what counts as a "living wage" seems wrong. And even then, 40/hr to support 4 people doesn't seem that outrageous of a number.

11

chadowan Mar 20, 2026 +15

Why is it wrong? Shouldn't we all agree that if a human being is dedicating 1/2+ of their waking hours to work then they should be able to make enough to start a family? Otherwise what's the point of working besides just making money for some company?

15

americon Mar 20, 2026 +15

The question is "Should minimum wage be high enough that 40 hours week of that wage be enough to support two children and a stay at home parent?" Ideally yes but is that feasible? What percent of low wage workers are single parents, parents with a stay-at-home partner, or even parents? We definitely need to raise the minimum wage and raise it significantly but I'm not sure supporting a 4 person household on one income is the metric to measure it. We should focus on getting minimum wage to be enough to support a two-person household (single parents) first and assist the outliers like 4 person household on one income with social programs.

15

chadowan Mar 20, 2026 +4

If you want people to actually have kids like we saw in the American baby boom, then that is the standard. It's actually really important for the long term economy for the population to reproduce above replacement. Look at Japan for what happens when you don't (and why China finally scrapped the 1 child policy). Instead we decided that government spending should go to absurd and pointless defense spending (i.e., Middle East Wars) while robber barons concentrated wealth like dragons hoarding treasure. Better policy could've easily helped solve this problem, but here we are. These are the choices we make as a country. If you just took all the money we spent on Iraq and Afghanistan and literally gave it to people we would not have this problem.

4

u60cf28 Mar 20, 2026 +14

The idyllic “breadwinner dad, homemaker mom” model of the 1960’s was only ever true for upper middle class and rich folks. The vast, vast majority of working class families were and have always been two income households.

14

chadowan Mar 20, 2026 +3

I'd buy that, but do you have a source?

3

u60cf28 Mar 20, 2026 +4

I wasn’t able to find a source specifically for working class families. But this BLS report from 2023 says https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-databook/2022/ “Among opposite-sex married-couple families, 52.5 percent had earnings from both the wife and the husband in 2020. This percentage, which has changed little over the past 10 years, is below the peak of 60.4 percent in 1996 but above the 43.6 percent seen in 1967 when the series began. Couples in which only the husband worked for pay represented 17.0 percent of married-couple families in 2020 versus 35.6 percent in 1967.” So in 1967: 43.6% of families had earnings from both husband and wife. 35.6% of families had only the husband working for pay. Which seems to imply that the remaining 20% were families where only the wife worked for pay? That seems….strange for the 1960’s. Perhaps I’m misinterpreting the data. But regardless, either 43% or 65% of families in 1967 were dual income households. I would wager that these were disproportionally concentrated amongst the working and lower middle classes.

4

LikesPez Mar 21, 2026 +4

One of the working adults needs to make $40/hr for a two income household to live comfortably.

4

volcanomoss Mar 20, 2026 +2

I'm also a little confused on the math. It mentions childcare costs however in that scenario only 1 parent would be working, so the other could presumably care for the kids. If 2 adults were working it would be almost $40/hr combined, especially if either made even slightly above minimum.

2

stormcynk Mar 20, 2026 -12

People are so entitled if they believe that the minimum wage should be enough to support a 4 person (2 adult, 2 child) household. Minimum wage should support a single person in a studio apartment, that's it.

-12

Heisenberglund Mar 20, 2026 +8

It’s called minimum wage because it was implemented as the minimum wage required to support a household.

8

stormcynk Mar 20, 2026 -9

It's called minimum wage because it's be the minimum **you** can survive on, not support your entire extended family on.

-9

MAMark1 Mar 20, 2026 +13

Two adults with two kids is not "your entire extended family". If both parents are working, it should be enough to get by with kids in public school. Not live lavishly. Just get by.

13

stormcynk Mar 20, 2026 -12

You're not going to convince me that a 40 hour minimum wage (aka worst jobs in the country) should independently support a family of 4. You want your partner to not have to work, you want to have multiple kids, get a job that requires some skills.

-12

xShooK Mar 20, 2026

Something like 50% of working Americans make minimum wage. Yes that includes kids, but still so many families. No one said it should support a family of 4 on one income either.

0

americon Mar 20, 2026 +2

I'm not sure I disagree with your overall point but I'm curious where you got the 50% number because when I looked it up its barely over 1%.

2

AudioBob24 Mar 20, 2026 +3

So you would rather pay higher taxes to cover the Medicaid and SNAP they’ll be needing to live in your distopia? For real knuckle head, even a selfish person should be able to work out that better stability on income enables the state programs to focus on those who need it most. Legit folks like you have the dumbest possible platform. “Minimum Wage is just the bottom of the barrel,” while ignoring that the tide has been rising to the point where now even the upper middle class is drowning.

3

zzyul Mar 20, 2026 +1

So if minimum wage goes up to $30 or whatever, does that mean taxes will be cut b/c those services won’t be needed?

1

jminternelia Mar 20, 2026

No. I'd rather a VAT tax pay for that.

0

DrPorkchopES Mar 20, 2026 +17

The issue is greed knows no bounds. A business that earns over $1 billion every year should absolutely be able to afford to pay their workers enough to afford housing, food, clothing, etc. But if this passes, there’s a 100% chance every business in the area jumps their prices to “cover the additional labor cost” (aka preserve their exorbitant profits) and things are extremely unlikely to improve. Minimum wage increases like this aren’t as helpful as they sound without also having plans to increase housing availability, control rents, control food prices, etc.

17

MonochromaticPrism Mar 20, 2026 +7

>But if this passes, there’s a 100% chance every business in the area jumps their prices to “cover the additional labor cost” (aka preserve their exorbitant profits) and things are extremely unlikely to improve. This is why you don't pass a static minimum wage, you pass one that is a value that scales relative to defined local and national economic variables. Then businesses and landlords choosing to crank their prices achieves nothing, as the minimum wage would automatically increase right along side it. And no, inflation wouldn't be caused by this, inflation is overwhelmingly caused by the separate issue of governments printing additional money.

7

bankkopf Mar 20, 2026 +18

Revenue != profit Companies can still turn a loss even with revenues in the billions, depending on the costs.

18

Punt_Again_Bob Mar 20, 2026 +31

You mean turn a loss with revenue in the billions, right?

31

bankkopf Mar 20, 2026 +2

Yes indeed

2

WhichEmailWasIt Mar 20, 2026 +9

I think you got that backwards. If their profit is in the billions they're doing just fine.

9

bankkopf Mar 20, 2026 +4

You are right. Should not be profits but revenues

4

upsidedownshaggy Mar 20, 2026 +6

Maybe these companies can cut back on the Netflix, Starbucks Coffee and Avocado toast for the C-suite then and pay their employees properly.

6

total_bullwhip Mar 20, 2026 -1

Bring their lunch to work. Ride public transport!

-1

binley Mar 21, 2026 +1

You’re also forgetting this is only affordable by large corporations. Small businesses are hit way harder by minimum wage hikes.

1

Daren_I Mar 20, 2026 +1

I don't see this working as they hope. If its the large companies that have to comply first before smaller ones, smaller companies will have lesser talent to choose from until they have to comply too. Additionally, this will mean prices in the county will go up accordingly for everyone. This doesn't even take into account someone trying to start a small business who now must ensure their pricing and overall sales can net $30 per hour per employee plus overhead and profit.

1

PNWPinkPanther Mar 20, 2026 +4

Large companies will always have an advantage to pay more for talent.

4

1098duc_w_the_termi Mar 20, 2026 +4

Talent? We’re talking about entry level jobs at the floor of min wage. We’re talking stockers, fast food, etc. it’s a win for everybody in the lower income bracket.

4

dan1101 Mar 20, 2026 +157

The cost of living must be nuts there.

157

Anonnymoose73 Mar 20, 2026 +63

The entry level base wage for the company I work for is 27.22. Most of my staff come in higher than that counting for their experience and education, and still the majority of them either have a second job or live with their parents. Rent is insane. I don’t set the salary scales, and my company actually does a good job with annual raises, but it’s so hard to make enough to really live here. I commute from a slightly less expensive suburb

63

SatinSaffron Mar 20, 2026 +17

Just took a peek at Zillow for that area. One of the smallest ones I could find, a 900sq ft house, is renting for $4600. If the rental qualifications are anything like they are over here in WA then they'll probably want your gross income to be 2.5x the monthly rent. So a single mom wanting to rent this 900sq ft place for her and her kid would need to make about $66.40/hr

17

ShoulderGoesPop Mar 20, 2026 +9

Did you only look at renting houses? Cause you can definitely find an apartment for less than that

9

ru_benz Mar 20, 2026 +23

I’m born and raised in Alameda County (which is in the East Bay), and the cost of living is definitely nuts here. With that said, of the 9 Bay Area counties, Alameda County generally falls around #5 or #6 when it comes to median household income and median home price. In other words, Alameda County is one of the more “affordable” counties in the Bay Area.

23

psychicsword Mar 20, 2026 +18

At some point we are going to have a cost of living disparity problem. The fact that living wages here are $32.31/hour but only $19.53 in West Virginia can't be good for this economy.

18

ponziacs Mar 20, 2026 +7

I reside in Virginia which is a very blue state and the tipped minimum wage is still $2.13 an hour.

7

markbraggs Mar 20, 2026 +3

Aside from the insane insurance and housing prices, and high income tax, sales tax is also 10.25% or more. Food prices and everything in general are expensive.

3

broha89 Mar 20, 2026 +3

It’s a huge county. It includes both Berkeley and Oakland which by themselves vary wildly in terms of quality of live and poverty levels. It also includes some wealthy outer Silicon Valley suburbs like Pleasanton and Livermore

3

lzwzli Mar 20, 2026 +1

It's California

1

SnooRabbits5754 Mar 21, 2026 +1

Used to live there, paid $1200 a month for a room in a small house that I shared with 2 other adults. Only one bathroom 🙃

1

JimHeckdiver Mar 20, 2026 +16

The overwhelming issue with the minimum wage is housing. Housing everywhere is obscenely overpriced, and the Apartment Cartels are doing everything they can to keep it that way. I'm not saying the minimum shouldn't be boosted, but it wouldn't need to go this high if housing wasn't so bad.

16

AdeptFelix Mar 20, 2026 +5

I agree. Housing costs are an outlier compared to other living costs in terms of how badly they have inflated. Trying to address it by forcing a higher minimum wage is dancing around the issue that housing is not in a sustainable place.

5

HVACStack Mar 20, 2026 +7

It's a tough problem to solve. I think everyone should make a living wage, even people working the most basic entry level job. But then that means you're tying cost to operate a business to the cost of living. Is that realistic for most places? I wonder what the percentage of small businesses that could survive paying their employees $30/hr is. If businesses close and there are 50% less jobs available that pay minimum wage, then there are 50% fewer people that would benefit from raising the minimum wage. Plus, small businesses are more likely to struggle to afford it, so we're left with more large corporations to fill those spaces which most people agree is bad for communities. I have to believe putting more controls on the cost of living somehow alongside a measure like this would be the play. Certainly that's more complicated though.

7

Seleukos_I_Nikator Mar 20, 2026 +2

If Alameda county allowed more housing to be built, all of this would go away.

2

chatte__lunatique Mar 20, 2026 +2

Alameda county _has_ had more housing built lately. You might have seen the news about Oakland rent prices lagging SF's by a significant margin in recent months? A large part of that has to do with Oakland having more vacant housing stock available.

2

HVACStack Mar 20, 2026 +1

I'm with it!

1

LumpyHeadJohn Mar 20, 2026 +36

Can't they just build more housing?

36

SonovaVondruke Mar 20, 2026 +7

They could, but labor, insurance, and other mandated costs are prohibitively high and property owners are not motivated to increase supply and stunt the value growth of their investment.

7

MonochromaticPrism Mar 20, 2026 +3

It’s mostly that second one, as a good many of the "mandated costs" also come from NIMBY policies that are designed to protect current home value at the cost of affordability to anyone that isn't already a home owner.

3

bs_hunter Mar 20, 2026 +1

Fucked situation there is they are building housing all over. None of it is affordable (Berkeley, Albany, Oakland). There was some bs mandate ~10% be “affordable”, no one I know has gotten those units if they even exist. Throw on top of that how hard PG&E is f****** us with energy cost, no one unless your STEM can afford any place here on “minimum” wage.

1

HVACStack Mar 20, 2026 +7

I have to believe eventually with enough supply, it won't matter than the housing is not "affordable". If there are empty units sitting vacant, property owners are forced to lower rents if they want any return on investment at all. So more housing = more empty units = all housing corrects.

7

SonovaVondruke Mar 20, 2026 +2

To a certain extent. We do have a unique situation here where we’re so backlogged on supply, that it creates artificial demand through investors, which further restrict supply and drive up costs, which in turn creates more demand from the speculators. Until we restrict foreign buyers and speculators, or provide some sort of leg up for people already living here whose savings for a down payment can’t grow as fast as home values, there will continue to be this artificial demand for people who want to profit off of housing instead of its intended purpose.

2

JustMyThoughts2525 Mar 20, 2026 +1

A developer had no incentive to build affordable housing, when they are looking to maximize profits. It will take government intervention to create more affordable housing. Then one people have homes, they are quick to have a NIMBY attitude to keep their property values high.

1

CantAffordzUsername Mar 20, 2026 +6

$46.00 an hour is what a study revealed is what a Californian would need to make to have a “standard” livable income in this state Let that sink in

6

bidhopper Mar 20, 2026 +28

I would bet that few, if any of the Alameda commissioners have ever had to make a payroll. The problem with escalating wages is that you’re going to have escalating prices. It’s spiraling uphill and it’s never going get any better. Wages, just like taxes, utilities and cost the goods all affect the selling price. Few, if any businesses are able to absorb that higher labor cost without having to raise prices. So where does that get everybody? Prices are higher so you have fewer customers. Fewer customers means shorter hours. Reduced take-home pay means you’re still gonna have people struggling. I’m not advocating against paying a living wage but there are so many other factors in play.

28

Optimal-Bass3142 Mar 20, 2026 +5

In a sense this also forces firms to make payscale adjustments for positions that are close enough to the new minimum wage that incumbents would be willing to take a pay cut for what they would view as easier work. And yes, it does stand to reason that industries with enough effected incumbents would have to raise prices to maintain comparable cash flows. What this does, in a sense, is takes the brunt of economic pain off of the shoulders of the poorest people and spreads it around the rest of the economy over a long period of time.

5

MonochromaticPrism Mar 20, 2026 +4

This argument is nonsense because going from the 1960s to the present the cost of housing, including renting, has increased by x4 the median wage value. If we could all survive that number being cranked up so dramatically, then wages being brought up is also just fine. All we need to do is lock minimum wage to specific economic factors, like inflation weighted to use local housing costs instead of national, and it doesn't matter how businesses respond. And no, that won't cause inflation so long as the government doesn't respond to pressure from corporations and print a ton of money to devalue currency.

4

MAMark1 Mar 20, 2026 +5

There's research on what leads to price increases and increasing minimum wage isn't quite as harmful as the rhetoric would have you believe, especially if phased in over time. We used to increase minimum wage regularly and the country did great. The current state of stagnation is based on arbitrary political decisions. We also get price increases without increases in the minimum wage so it's not like this is the only cause. We constantly do things that cause inflation. Inflation isn't even a bad thing when at proper levels. Maybe, instead of doing the inflationary actions that largely led to wealth inequality and more capture of wealth at the top, we could do the ones that benefit the rest of society and the price increases won't hurt as much? If you combined increased minimum wages with taxes on the ultra-wealthy, you could keep the dollars in the system relatively static, get the overall benefits of starting to undo historical wage stagnation, and help those who have the greatest need and arguably the most personal utility from those dollars. Add in some universal healthcare based on a progressive tax system and those at the bottom, who are allegedly hurt the most by price increases, get another boost (as does basically the entire middle class). Sure, in a vacuum, minimum wage increase like this could have negatives (though not necessarily more than positives), but, when combined with other changes, it likely shifts the entire system in the right direction.

5

happy-cig Mar 20, 2026 +5

So does this make people who make $30 currently, minimum wage workers?

5

chatte__lunatique Mar 20, 2026 +3

Not directly, but because their employers have to raise wages to keep their wages competitive. This is a well-documented phenomenon with minimum wage increases. A rising tide lifts all boats, as the saying goes.

3

turb0_encapsulator Mar 20, 2026 +7

I support $20 per hour in HCOL areas, but $30 is out of control. Lots of brick and mortar businesses simply won't be able to operate. Find other ways to lower the cost of living. Building housing is the obvious one. But also building transit and making it easier for people to live without a car.

7

pixeltackle Mar 20, 2026 +21

I'm all for raising wages but won't the tiered system give big companies an advantage in the area? Smaller companies will be allowed to pay less, and the benefits are often nonexistent at smaller businesses - what kind of talent will be applying there?

21

colemon1991 Mar 20, 2026 +12

It would in that sense if there's a lot of competitive openings. This gives smaller businesses an edge so they don't go under from a sudden rise in minimum wage that large companies can eat. It's the difference in a chain restaurant vs a local restaurant where chains might ride out bad quarters but a local one might have to close from one bad quarter.

12

_goblinette_ Mar 20, 2026 +11

No one is stopping the smaller companies from paying more if they want to improve their talent pool.

11

varitok Mar 20, 2026 +48

The fact that paying 30 dollars an hour would put most of them out of business is what's preventing them.

48

Platypus-Ninja Mar 20, 2026 -4

If you can’t afford to pay your employees a living wage, you shouldn’t have a business.

-4

HVACStack Mar 20, 2026 +18

I think your argument then is that most businesses currently operating in alameda shouldn't exist. That's pretty much every retail store, restaurant, fast food place, and coffee shop.

18

HomemadeSprite Mar 20, 2026 +3

The system is broken. Cost of living outpaced wages while cost of goods has remained artificially low to maximize profits and align with what enough consumers can afford. The previous model would’ve seen costs of goods rise with the wages and the general cost of living, all balancing out with people generally being able to afford those higher priced goods. Instead, we chose to maximize c suite profits and keep wages stagnant while, currently, pushing prices clever higher little by little.

3

HVACStack Mar 20, 2026 +1

I don't disagree. I wish it were easier to fix though.

1

Platypus-Ninja Mar 20, 2026 -1

I live in alameda county and will go out of my way to eat/shop at places that are dedicated to paying their employees a living wage. There is always a big scare that raising the minimum wage will force most places to go out of business which has been proven not to be true. Will some places go under? Sure, but isn’t that the price of doing business under capitalism? Will most? Absolutely not. There are many studies about that but [here is one.](https://news.berkeley.edu/2023/03/14/even-in-small-businesses-minimum-wage-hikes-dont-cause-job-losses-study-finds/) “It kills job vacancies, not jobs. The higher wage makes it easier to recruit workers and retain them. Turnover rates go down. Other research shows that those workers are likely to be a little more productive, as well.” The argument against raising the minimum wage really struggles to hold up when you already see companies raising prices and cutting hours and yet that only leads to increased profits/dividends rather than increased employee wages and benefits.

-1

HVACStack Mar 20, 2026 +1

Interesting! I do like the idea that paying people more carries a lot of less immediately tangible benefits that translate to savings in the long run. I've consistently enjoyed the service I receive at In n Out for example, and I've always felt like the higher wages paid to those employees translated into a better overall quality of experience compared to other fast food places. It probably drives a lot of repeat business even though it's more expensive upfront. I do still wonder though about the controls and exact numbers though of policies as described in OPs article. I imagine that we could agree that raising the minimum wage to $100/hr would be cost prohibitive and crush most small (and large) businesses. Therefore, there must be a limit of raising a minimum wage where the benefits your citation describes are overshadowed by the cost burden it puts on the business. With that in mind, I'm just wondering about $30 and how it falls within the "Goldilocks Zone". I have to do more research, but I'm interested to see if the Berkeley study has hard data and numbers I can dig into. Thank you for the discussion and article.

1

Platypus-Ninja Mar 20, 2026 +1

Always happy advocate for paying people a living wage. I can reply in more detail later, but [here is another paper from Berkeley](https://irle.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/The-unexpected-effects-of-a-20-federal-minimum-wage.pdf) that was actually just released on the topic.

1

shanatard Mar 20, 2026 +8

Well, yea. So they just wont have a business now. Only pre-rich people will have the leeway to try starting a business Its not a good or bad framing, just the reality of the situation

8

UnitSmall2200 Mar 21, 2026 +1

You know the big companies don't have an infinite number of jobs for everybody. They already like to employ those with the best resume on paper or the best connections and those that don't get taken have no choice but go to any other company that takes them. The companies are the ones that pick the employees. So most people never had a choice to begin with. This isn't something that would make big companies hire more people, on the contrary they would be more likely to outsource more work to smaller companies. What kind of talent will be applying? Same as always. The big companies already pay more, because they can. This won't change how people apply. This would not change much, the problem of the wage gap would still exist. Which is what really drives cost of living. It's because there are people who make so much money, that greedy landlords can charge so much. Those at the upper end can afford it, while those at the lower end struggle. But that is how our economic system is set up. There are winners and there are losers. It would help more people if the wages of the top earners went down and landlords had to lower their prices. But neither top earners, nor landlords want that. So we got no other choice but to increase minimum wage to close the gap to allow those at the bottom to even survive. But they then further increase the wages of the top earners, in a cat and mouse game, inflating numbers and we end up with regions where people earn significantly more than the rest of the country, but also have such high cost of living.

1

MAMark1 Mar 20, 2026 +12

The entire "minimum wage shouldn't be livable" mentality is just a product of the artificial repression of wages that began when they stopped regularly increasing minimum wage. It's only because it slowly got less livable over time and people can't think beyond their own recent experiences that this mentality became more prevalent in American culture. The system of yearly increases based around inflation made far more sense than a politicized, and largely static, minimum wage. By keeping it artificially low, we also caused stagnation in higher salary tiers and now everyone is "paying the price". An arbitrary set of decisions over time that led to the current state, and we literally created insane amounts of federal debt and had a lower QoL just so some ultra-wealthy could get to the 100s of billions.

12

Cuconosil Mar 20, 2026 +2

About time somewhere leads on this – Bay Area wages have been absurd for years

2

ekinti Mar 20, 2026 +18

I wonder why they don't just make it $100/hr minimum, everyone would be rich.

18

TiberiusCornelius Mar 20, 2026 +17

I mean you understand that the Bay Area is one of the most expensive areas in the entire country, right? The current median rent in Alameda County is $2,675/mo. If the minimum was $15 and you worked 40 hours per week you still would earn less than the median rent, even before taking out taxes. I think there are better ways to address high costs in the long run (build more housing) and maybe $30 is a bit excessive, but the reality is in the immediate term you've got to do something to keep it possible for people to actually live there.

17

Enlogen Mar 20, 2026 +5

> but the reality is in the immediate term you've got to do something to keep it possible for people to actually live there. If it weren't possible for people to live there, they wouldn't live there (which would reduce the demand for housing and thus cost of living, making it possible for people to actually live there). It's tempting to solve market distortions by stacking more market distortions, but scarcity is an unavoidable reality. The result of letting it play out freely would be better.

5

kingoftheplebsIII Mar 20, 2026 +9

Yeah I mean people already commute from less expensive areas but that just ignores the underlying problems with the labor/cost of living equation.

9

ParadoxicalIrony99 Mar 20, 2026 -16

If rent is that high and wages low, just move.

-16

Renegadeknight3 Mar 20, 2026 +10

There’s a plethora of reasons moving is unrealistic for the average person. I’m of the opinion that we should try to solve problems instead of buffeting people around to places that might not even be beneficial to them

10

TiberiusCornelius Mar 20, 2026 +11

Easier said than done. Moving costs money. There's application fees, security deposits, utility initiation fees, the actual costs of renting a truck or hiring movers, first & last months at your new place, etc. Not to mention finding a job wherever you're moving to, and many places will not rent to you if you don't have proof of income in the first place. Anywhere that's within commuting distance of your existing job is also likely to be just as expensive, so you will be looking further afield. I moved across my own state (not on the west coast) 3 years ago because I was getting priced out of where I was living, and it was not c****. I spent north of $3,000 between everything. If all of your money is getting sunk into exorbitant housing costs already, how are you supposed to come up with it to move elsewhere? Again I think $30 is probably too high and it's not going to fix the long-run problem, but in the immediate term you need to set wages at a level where people can actually survive and maybe even possibly actually move to cheaper areas.

11

HASHTHRASH Mar 20, 2026 +6

Big "just buy less Starbucks" energy with this comment. People just scraping buy don't have the luxury of uprooting everything and moving somewhere new, possibly far from friends and family.

6

Sic_Semper_Dumbasses Mar 20, 2026 -12

Do you also wonder why people stop talking to you whenever you dismiss things by making ridiculous jokes like that?

-12

AdultFunSpotDotCom Mar 20, 2026 +6

Never ending cycle. With every increase, cost/price of EVERYTHING rises to compensate. The system is broken

6

ShoulderGoesPop Mar 20, 2026 +3

The cost of everything already goes up. It's the clearest thing in the world to see. So why not raise wages as well

3

Aluwolf- Mar 20, 2026 +27

This is largely untrue, things go up, regardless of stagnant wages. This is a conservative talking point used to keep minimum wages in place and has caused us to be in a cost of living crisis. Federal minimum has largely been unchanged for decades. Taxing the top and increasing the wages of the bottom would fix this.

27

IAHawkeye182 Mar 20, 2026 +12

And those who are earning higher wages than minimum wage often don’t increase proportionately - the floor increases but it’s not equal all the way around. So, the middle class is “compacted” closer together, while cost of everything increases. Those who have a skill or education lose most.

12

chatte__lunatique Mar 20, 2026 +2

As one of those with "skill or education," I still fully expect this to have a positive effect on my own wages. A rising tide lifts all boats, and any inflation caused by minimum wage increases will be outweighed by the increase in take-home pay. This has been proven in study after study. And besides that, I'm not about to shit on people less fortunate than me. This area is f****** expensive, and I know many working class people who have had to leave, even those who grew up here, because it is simply too expensive. This is very much a good thing, unless you count yourself amongst the owning class.

2

ministryofchampagne Mar 20, 2026 +12

The costs of things are always going up. Inflation happens regardless. We’ve let people make your argument for so long that now the fix is a painful jump when it could have been dealt with gradually if not for the people only concerned with themselves

12

hey-Oliver Mar 20, 2026 +5

Yes that is how it’s supposed to function in a capitalist economy A certain level of pricing inflation happens regardless in capitalist systems and the best way to balance the burden created is increasing the purchasing power of the working class The system is coming apart due to the fact wages haven’t kept up with pricing increases

5

instant_ace Mar 20, 2026 +4

I disagree, the system is working exactly as intended, by increasing wages, people feel like they are being heard, getting ahead, but when costs go up to keep shareholder profits up, everyone wins, and the people don't feel the need to strike / boycott / revolt because "at least they are trying". Wish it wasn't so. I remember when Carls Jr and $5 got you an entire meal...man I miss those days in the 90's

4

Kyanche Mar 20, 2026 +1

> Wish it wasn't so. I remember when Carls Jr and $5 got you an entire meal...man I miss those days in the 90's I was around in the 90s and I don't believe I ever saw a $5 Carls Jr meal lol. Maybe with the spicy chicken sandwich? Even that was iffy. To me Carls Jr was always the place I went when the coupon sheet came in the mail! Get that buy-one-get-one-free western burger deal! Or was it 2 for $6 lol. I miss that.

1

Deathscua Mar 20, 2026 +1

I am with you. To me Carls Jr was expensive and a once in a while thing when my mom got the coupons.

1

Kyanche Mar 20, 2026 +1

Yea it's funny. This next comment is going to be sacrilege but: I considered Carls Jr better than In-N-Out lol. And the milkshakes! Their milkshakes are amazing for a normal fast food milkshake.

1

_goblinette_ Mar 20, 2026 -2

Inflation is happening anyway. Keeping wages low in an attempt to reduce it only fucks us over.

-2

Sock-Enough Mar 20, 2026 +3

This would increase inflation. Prices do not inflate at a set rate.

3

khinzaw Mar 20, 2026 +4

>[How Does Minimum Wage Affect Inflation? There are many complex aspects to analyzing the relationship between minimum wage and inflation. Historical data supports the stance that a minimum wage has had a minimal impact on how companies price their goods and does not materially cause inflation. Some companies may find there may be ancillary or downstream impacts of raising wages due to their operating location, industry, or composition of labor.](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/052815/does-raising-minimum-wage-increase-inflation.asp#:~:text=There%20are%20many%20complex%20aspects%20to%20analyzing,operating%20location%2C%20industry%2C%20or%20composition%20of%20labor.)

4

Sock-Enough Mar 20, 2026 -2

Historically just minimum wage increases have been relatively small. Also, there are going to be substitution effects as businesses become non viable and people shop elsewhere. That wouldn’t be reflected in our measures of inflation but it would be a reduction in wellbeing as a result of minimum wage increases.

-2

upsidedownshaggy Mar 20, 2026 +3

The issue is minimum wage increases haven't kept up. Conservatives across the country argue against any and all minimum wage increases and by the time you actually get one passed it's this massive increase because it's been stagnate for years and that's what it would've been had the smaller gradual increases been allowed to happen. And as someone else pointed out this passed increase is a gradual one, they won't hit the $30 an hour mark until 2030 if you business has more than 100 employees and a Billion or more in revenue, companies with less than 25 employees have a full decade to get it up there. Also the excuse that small businesses would become non-viable is horse shit. Tons of research and applied studies have shown that when people have more money in their pockets they spend it at their local businesses more. Keeping wages low hurts smaller businesses more because less people have the money to spend at them. Like we need to stop being all doom and gloom about the average person being paid slightly better when a grand total of 12 dudes control saw their combined wealth quadruple from like $600 Billion in 2020 to $2.7 Trillion today.

3

ice-eight Mar 20, 2026 +2

Not proportionately though. Labor costs are only a fraction of a business’s total costs, and labor costs of minimum wage employees even smaller. I’m sure it’s different across industries but going back to my time as an industrial engineer in logistics, doubling the minimum wage would have necessitated about a 3% increase in prices to keep profit margins the same

2

xwing_n_it Mar 20, 2026 +4

This is great news, but I think as these minimum wage laws hit we'll see rents and food also go up. Our markets for housing and food are so concentrated right now they can just extract more as consumers make more. Workers can't really win until those markets are de-concentrated again. Or we do socialism.

4

bduxbellorum Mar 20, 2026 +2

Minimum wage law is always stupid. It bans people with low value skills from having jobs, drives up costs, and eliminates whole categories of labor in the areas where it is implemented. In Alameda county, the median income is somewhere around $140k. The VAST majority of people who work full time jobs make over $100k. These laws ban people from entering the job market at low levels. They ban their kids from picking up their first jobs, they ban people from doing easy part-time jobs while they are in school or don’t want to work. Not every job needs to pay for an apartment and a living and more people will miss out on learning how to make a living if they can’t get an entry level job.

2

carnage123 Mar 20, 2026 +4

> Not every job needs to pay for an apartment and a living what do you think 'minimum wage' means?

4

carnage123 Mar 20, 2026 +2

If that's the case then why is it a law? Minimum wage legit was made to force companies to pay a minimum wage that would allow a single person to live off of because companies tend to have a bad habit of screwing everyone over on wages so the government actually tried to step in and help people out

2

chatte__lunatique Mar 20, 2026 +2

Read: companies should be allowed to exploit vulnerable people by paying them sub-poverty wages so their owners can buy a 2nd yacht

2

d_smogh Mar 20, 2026 +6

Or maybe reduce the costs of everything. More ?~~oat~~? just means companies can continue to increase the prices and profits.

6

_goblinette_ Mar 20, 2026 +28

>Or maybe reduce the costs of everything And how do you propose that they do that?

28

RAM_AIR_IV Mar 20, 2026 +9

Probably reducing zoning laws and getting rid of any rent control to promote more housing to be built

9

Reznerk Mar 20, 2026 +12

But rent control is supposed to help people, what do you mean it disincentivizes new building and forces people to participate in a l****** system?

12

Seleukos_I_Nikator Mar 20, 2026 +5

If developers know they won’t turn a profit from an apartment building, they just won’t build it. Rent control helps tenants who are lucky enough to lock that price in but does nothing for anyone else. In NYC rent controlled apartments are passed down in families or illegally sublet at higher prices so the beneficiary of the rent control can turn their own profit. It’s simple supply and demand, build more apartments and houses, and rents will fall.

5

MonochromaticPrism Mar 21, 2026 +1

>If developers know they won’t turn a profit from an apartment building, they just won’t build it. This is also what government is supposed to do. Housing shouldn't be an investment, it's fundamental for society, like water and electricity and healthcare and food. If rent control is necessary then the government should also be the one building new housing, not developers. Treating a fundamental human need as something to be profit-maxxed is why we are in this situation in the first place.

1

HASHTHRASH Mar 20, 2026 +6

There is new housing all over the area in the form of giant apartment buildings. I knew someone that lived in one a couple blocks from me, and their rent was $5000 a month for a two bedroom apartment for him and his daughter. They aren't building for the poors that already live here, they are building for the people making the tech money. And all that new housing hasn't eased anything in the area.

6

Kyanche Mar 20, 2026 +3

I think the pricing of those usually is "reasonable" compared to the rest of the housing in the area, the sticker shock is either because you've been renting another place for a while, or the other place is old and barely meets code. (let's face it, it's a 60-100 year old house/apartment with 50+ years of slapdash landlord special fixes/improvements)

3

Snagmesomeweaves Mar 20, 2026 +1

This is honestly the only way. It would promote lots being turned into good MFH options like townhomes or condos, instead of shitty corpo apartments.

1

Falcon4242 Mar 20, 2026 +3

Prices and profits are increasing every year even without minumum wage increases. That how our system has worked since the beginning. If you want to stop that, you have to fundamentally move away from capitalism. If you want to keep capitalism without creating a larger and larger class of poor people, you need to increase the minimum wage to keep up with costs. One or the other.

3

Phreekai Mar 20, 2026 +2

Gonna force out small businesses even with the 10 yr delay.

2

MagicalTrianglez Mar 20, 2026

Guess there goes your chance of getting an entry level job. Best try across the county lines. The sad reality is increasing the minimum wage just reduces jobs. Hey, that pisses me off too.

0

Kyanche Mar 20, 2026 +2

I haven't really seen that be the case when the wage went up over the last 10 years. The price went up a bit, but last time I was out of state I realized the prices of everything there went up too, and usually almost the same. The jobs I have seen go away were the companies that went out of business - Rite Aid, Joann Fabrics, Big Lots, 99 cent store, and sears/kmart (which still sorta existed and now definitely don't). But you can't really blame CA minimum wage for that either because that happened all over the country. Yep. Even in the states where the minimum wage is an awesome fair $7.25 an hour AND PRODUCES JOBS FOR EVERYONE!!! RIGHT?! Right? $7.25 an hour jobs for everyone?! I wonder why places like Appalachia aren't booming with jobs for everyone then. The thing I've seen kill jobs faster than anything else, ESPECIALLY retail or food jobs, is high commercial rent. It boggles my mind when I see a half-empty mall where the rent is so damn high nobody can afford to make a profitable business lol. Or an entire city block of downtown buildings with empty shop spaces because of the same. And you can't blame crime rates for that. I promise. If the rent was c**** enough, it doesn't matter how bad the neighborhood is. I've seen liquor stores set up shop in some ROUGH places before. They'll put bars on the windows, use those steel roller doors, have an intercom and only let people in 1 at a time. Anything. If they think they can make some $$ that business will exist lol. I mean I'm sure wages play SOME role. But it's not the whole story.

2

crucialcolin Mar 20, 2026 +1

Yup a great example of this is the old JoAnn Fabrics building in my Sacramento California suburb. To lease that space the commercial property owner has been demanding a minimum of $85K a month in rent. As a result it's sat empty for at least a year now and I expect it will remain that way indefinitely. There is a lot of scattered empty commercial buildings throughout both the same suburb and the entire region just like it too.

1

ShoulderGoesPop Mar 20, 2026 +1

[https://news.berkeley.edu/2023/03/14/even-in-small-businesses-minimum-wage-hikes-dont-cause-job-losses-study-finds/](https://news.berkeley.edu/2023/03/14/even-in-small-businesses-minimum-wage-hikes-dont-cause-job-losses-study-finds/)

1

Skullsandcoffee Mar 20, 2026 -8

There is such a thing as taking things too far. Wide left progressives are as bad as MAGA in this sense.

-8

CombustiblePantaloon Mar 20, 2026 +8

Yeah the literal fascists are just as bad as the people trying to give folks on minimum wage a raise. Exactly the same. I bet you were the valedictorian of your high school too.

8

Skullsandcoffee Mar 20, 2026 -6

And I bet you’re one of the folks who still makes minimum wage.

-6

CombustiblePantaloon Mar 20, 2026

Swing and a miss slugger. Hit the showers

0

ceviche-hot-pockets Mar 20, 2026 -8

Yeah this is my take. It took me 4 years of college and a decade after that to start earning $30/hr…what’s the justification to skip all that? If they want to earn more, they should gain more skills or move somewhere they can afford.

-8

HVACStack Mar 20, 2026 +2

Is your argument that since it took you 14 years to start making $30/hr it should take everyone 14 years to start making $30/hr?

2

ceviche-hot-pockets Mar 20, 2026

No, I’m saying that the value of the labor at McDonald’s/WalMart/etc is not $30/hr and it’s f****** dumb to pretend that it is.

0

HVACStack Mar 20, 2026 +2

Who decides the value of labor though, you? Communities? Companies? I guess I've never bought the whole "bootstraps" argument. One struggle doesn't invalidate another. It sounds like you think if you work a job (yes, any job!) you shouldn't be entitled to live somewhere reasonably comfortably, which is where you and I disagree. To clarify, I don't think minimum wage controls are always a good idea and I'm largely against it. But there has to be a base agreed upon belief of "people working should get to live" in order for real solutions to be possible.

2

stormcynk Mar 20, 2026 +3

The company hiring the person obviously. If the person wanting a job thinks they deserve higher pay, they're welcome to go somewhere else that agrees with them.

3

HVACStack Mar 20, 2026 +1

Of course! It was meant as a rhetorical question - it seemed as the person I replied to was saying what THEY thought the value of labor was. You can look at it so many different ways. How much does each worker contribute to McD's bottom line? Maybe that figure should contribute to what the "value" of labor is. McDonald's could also try and pay their workers $10 and hour because that's what they think it's worth. But no one would actually work there if that was the case. So the value is also decided by the workers, not just the employer. Ceviche is saying they worked hard for 14 years and they make $30, so why should someone working at McDonald's make the same as them? But someone could work hard for 2 years and go to welding school and make $30. Does that person not deserve it because their struggle was shorter? Someone could get a job from their parents and make $30 with no experience. Does that person not deserve it because they didn't struggle at all? So whose "hard work" do we weigh against the $30 and who is worth it? It's quickly apparent that it's more complicated than what you can decide from your personal view. I personally don't see the merit in taking away from the people struggling at the bottom, just because you're worried they will have the same as you. It's like the expression - you should never look into someone else's bowl of food, except to see that they have enough. And again I'm not saying that $30 an hour is a good idea or not, I would look to data and studies for that. I just have issues with the argument that "I worked hard, therefore everyone needs to work equally hard as me" and think it detracts from the discussion.

1

weezyverse Mar 21, 2026 +1

But here's a fact that'll highlight what's wrong with our country. You're more likely to see businesses close up shop due to a high minimum wage than you are to see workers protest that wages are too low. We simply don't hold people accountable the way we should across the board.

1

MajesticQ Mar 20, 2026 +1

Jesus Christ. How will small businesses be affected? I'd just do business elsewhere and sell online. Everyone's fucked if there's a law imposing higher taxes on Uber. I assume fast food will have a price increase immediately and layoffs.

1

Phreekai Mar 20, 2026 +1

All fast food joints will switch to all self service kiosks with like one or two employees.

1

OutInABlazeOfGlory Mar 20, 2026 +2

Remember when the fight was for $15 because that was enough to live on?

2

NotBadAndYou Mar 21, 2026

15 years ago? Pepperidge Farms remembers.

0

SoloWingPixy88 Mar 20, 2026

How to make the situation worse.

0

Mr_Emo_Taco Mar 20, 2026

Alameda county could be the first in the nation to lose all its jobs.

0

Lesbian_Skeletons Mar 20, 2026

Bootlickers are out in force on this one

0

Alameda County could become the first in the nation to pass a 30-dollar minimum wage

💬 Send a Message

156 Comments