Pure propoganda. This is nothing but an attempt to grow unions. If you want to eliminate poverty in LB, do the following:
1. End affordable housing 2. End welfare subsidized services such as healthcare and childcare 3. Educate people that housekeeping jobs at hotels are not "pathways" to the middle class and shouldn't be. They are low wage jobs. If people want to be middle class they need to develop a skill set. Housekeeping jobs should be viewed as jobs to make ends meat until you can develop your skill set.
We can't continue offering up more homeless, welfare, housing services than any other surrounding city and then act surprised when poor people are drawn to the area.
As an aside, I remember watching the council meeting when they were talking about this living wage BS and a woman complained she had been working at a hotel downtown for 10 years and she only made $10/hour. She complained in SPANISH. You've been here 10 years and you haven't learned English and you have the arrogance to complain about your wages. Unbelievable.
Our problems are not because of the tourism we have invested in. They are because our council members are bought and paid for by unions and special interest groups and they make decisions with a socialist style agenda.
Dr.Tom
· 11 months ago
lbresident, do you REALLY think that by doing 1,2 and 3 you will end poverty in Long Beach? By the way the report doesn't say to increase more social programs for the poor, what it's saying is that the city should take a leadership role in ensuring that workers in the LB tourism industry should get paid a descent wage, not a wage that keeps people in poverty. These hotels are making millions in profits, but the workers get crumbs.
Also, you think it doesn't take skills to clean up 20 guest rooms a day in 8 hours? Think again. These jobs require hard work and organization. And, finally, do you REALLY expect everyone to go to school to get the training they need to be middle class? That's ridiculous. These jobs will always exist and will need people to do them, but that doesn't mean the workers should be treated like garbage.
lbresident
· 11 months ago
The jobs are hard work. That doesn't haven't a correlation with pay. Pay is based on how unique the skill set is and how hard that skill set is to find/hire and how badly and employer needs it.
Doing 1,2,and 3 would at a minimum stop poverty from growing in LB and likely would decrease it. There will always be people who have bad luck, make bad decisions, or some combination. Long Beach is set up to attract those people. Other cities are not.
I don't expect everyone to go to school to get training to be middle class. But I expect anyone who wants to be middle class to make good decisions and prioritize making themselves marketable. Working in a hotel as a maid for 10 years is not nor should it be a path to being middle class. People need to have that expectation and act according to their goals.
a LB resident against poorism
· 11 months ago
"Long Beach is set up to attract those people. Other cities are not." Really? So I guess that means Long Beach should be the only one in California with poverty, guess what? It's not. We're in a terrible economy and there are even people with college degrees taking $10 hr jobs, so let's rethink the generalizations and stereotypes here. We need to stop playing the NIMBY game, we're all affected by the declining quality of life in a large portion of our city.
"Pay is based on how unique the skill set is and how hard that skill set is to find/hire" Let's try to use this yardstick to measure most high-profile entertainment, sports and politico jobs and see how accurate it is.
lbresident
· 11 months ago
Long Beach has more poverty than it should. This is due to the magnets for poverty such as low income housing and social services that our city council has instituted.
I"m not playing the NIMBY game. I don't want this stuff anywhere (but especially my backyard). These are destructive programs that do not motivate people to strive to be their best.
Go ahead, use that yardstic. Kobe Bryant makes more money than Derek Fisher because he has a stronger skill set. Brad Pitt makes more money than other actors because he brings in more money for producers.
a LB resident against poorism
· 11 months ago
Here, here...what's wrong with a decent wage? All of the people commenting here seem to think THEY deserve it, why not everyone that gives an honest day's work? Besides, why should hotel owners be allowed to exploit desperate people at the taxpayers expense?
Laurence B. Goodhue
· 11 months ago
Excuse me!!! Can someone please name one hotel or restaurant in Long Beach where the employer is holding a gun to a worker's head forcing them to work? These hotels provide excellent entry level opportunities for large numbers of people especially for students and seniors who wish to go back to work. For those that want to remain in that industry routes for advancement are available to the diligent and determined.For those that are not,their best option is to go forth to whence they came.
TheShore
· 11 months ago
These hotel jobs are entry level jobs. They are not supposed to be "careers". The report mentions how much has been "invested in the hotels", does it outline how much money has benefited the City through Transit Occupany Tax, or by people coming to Long Beach for a convention (and a reasonably priced hotel) and then spending their money in our economy while their here?
Do Long Beach hotel pay wages that are similar to hotels in other cities?
Less low income housing will result in fewer Long Beach residents living in poverty. If that means the hotels have a smaller potential workforce and have to pay higher wages, so be it. But that is the way to fix this problem, not through some arbitrary regulation.
Juan Pardell
· 11 months ago
Long Beach has poverty issues, because of existing policies which reward inertia, as opposed to radical reform that stops embracing the cycle of poverty. I don't agree, that someone should be rewarded with a certain wage simply because they feel its a right. People have to work hard in order to achieve a certain life standard. Now, is Long Beach generating tourism revenues to sustain wage increases for hospitality workers? Perhaps, more quantifiable data should be provided before anyone can make that assertion.
a LB resident against poorism
· 11 months ago
The problems in this city reach a lot further than some of the residents not speaking English (as an earlier comment suggested). The city doesn't invest in youth development programs; they're always cutting funding for schools and after-school programs. Libraries and community centers are underfunded and constantly "on the block" for cuts as well. Someone mentioned learning new skills ... well let's see, the state is again cutting millions from the community college and university systems which are then forced to cancel classes and turn students (potentially thousands) away. So then where then do people go to acquire these skills? If we don't invest in our future, what kind of jobs should we expect to be available here for our residents?
lbresident
· 11 months ago
English is the language of success in this country. If you live here for 10 years and don't bother to learn it, you can not justifyably complain about your wages.
Programs may be getting cut, but anyone who wants an education can get one. Stop making excuses for people and they'll stop making them for themselves.
concernedtaxpayer
· 11 months ago
You may have a point regarding certain social welfare programs, but isn't the $750 million in taxpayer money spent on corporate welfare (tourism industry) equally offensive? If that money is just adding to the pocketbook of corporations, with no real net gain to residents or workers, that should be a sound argument to end corporate welfare as well. That seems to be where the article and study are getting, .i.e, "calls for... a reassessment of the city’s longtime economic strategies."
LB resident against poorism
· 11 months ago
I never said people shouldn't learn English. I think they should, if I moved to France and didn't learn French I certainly wouldn't expect any extra accommodations. I just meant that the language barrier is not the main reason for poverty in this city. There's a large portion of the population that were born here and speak the language just fine who can't find better opportunities. I'm not talking about hand-outs, I mean investing in education. As we all know education can make the difference, but it shouldn't be so difficult to obtain. With constant cuts to libraries, youth programs, colleges, grade schools and other learning resources why is anyone surprised that the cycle of poverty continues?
lbresident
· 11 months ago
Are you implying that someone who was born here and knows English does not have the opportunity to get an education?
LB City Girl
· 11 months ago
No more subsidies to the tourism industry! If the damn thing can't make money on it's own then we all need to face the fact that our tourism industry is a failure. It either needs to die on its own, or figure out how to succeed.
wrongbeachjohn
· 11 months ago
Just listen to the whores at the chamber of commerce; the only good welfare is corporate welfare.
RJ_in_LB
· 11 months ago
A hearing may be a good idea. But, I think equally important to determining what type of city we don't want to be / how we do not want to allocate our resources is what type of city do we want to be in the future? What type of short, mid and long term investments need to be made to create real, sustainable jobs in the new economy?
We have inexpensive realestate, great public transportion access from and to LA, an airport, and the west coast's largest port. But, we still can't make that work to our advantage. It's pretty sad.
To directly address our city's investment in LB tourism.. I do not know all of the facts. But, from a common sense perspective I look at a So Cal visitor's other options: 1. Disneyland 2. Hollywood 3. Other beaches in OC or LA
Trying to compete with these alternatives seems foolish.... throwing good money after bad money.
OC Surfer
· 11 months ago
Remove the breakwater, and restore the waves, and poverty will be removed for most parts of Long Beach. Period.
Neighborhoods will regentrify and improve and tourists will actually stay here in Long Beach longer than their convention stay. With the breakwater gone, I forsee the potential of Long Beach being the next Downtown San Diego, with a vibe in between of Manhattan Beach and Huntington Beach.
J9
· 11 months ago
1. LB hotels pay their workers less than workers in LA, (including LAX) and less than workers in OC.
2. In response to the Working hard for less pay; these workers work hard and receive minimal pay, the jobs are entry level with minimal room for promotions, they take these jobs because it is the work they can get.
3. The city should invest in its citizens by investing in good jobs, not subsidizing jobs that produce poverty. ** good jobs pay well, provide benefits, treat employees with respect, and provide enough stability that workers are not forced to work more than one full time job, live in poor housing, house with mulitple families, or require state subsidizes.
4. It is nature for cities to compete, but competing for business without regards for their citizens is neglecting the role of a city.
I hope people engage the city to be respectful and responsible.
Dave Wielenga
· 11 months ago
In a comment a few days ago, LBRESIDENT used two examples to support his argument that a worker's "skill set" determined how well that worker was paid. He wrote, "Kobe Bryant makes more money than Derek Fisher because he has a stronger skill set. Brad Pitt makes more money than other actors because he brings in more money for producers." True. But both Kobe Bryant and Brad Pitt work in very unionized industries. The contract between the NBA's Players Association and the National Basketball Association establishes minimum salaries for players based on their years of experience--and those minimums do not count against the salary cap. This year, those minimums range from $442,114 for a player with no experience to $1,262,275 for a player with 10 or more years of experience. Those minimums go up every year. Likewise, the Screen Actors Guild and AFTRA set minimum pay requirements for actors, including residuals for subsequent screenings and sales of their work. As you noted from the way that exceptional talents like Kobe and Brad have flourished, their unions did not take away their motivation to excel--instead, it provided a basis for that excellence. Thanks for pointing that out!
RJ_in_LB
· 11 months ago
I do agree that there is a direct correlation between one's wages and the fair value of their skill set (the message that I think LBRESIDENT was trying to send). But, I do not think that Kobe or Brad are good examples to support your or LBRESIDENT's point - they would be doing just as well without a union due to the nature of their industries (entertainment).
Fundamentally, I think there is a problem. The problem is that there are so many LB residence that only qualify for jobs that fall into the unskilled and low income categories. This in itself is an issue. Note: These pay rates do not break any wage laws, nor do they underrepresent the value that I believe the employees are delivering.
By increasing the minimum wage for unskilled jobs, we would be positively reinforcing the pursuit of such jobs. This will make our community and its individuals less productive, less successful economically, and less educated.
LB should be incentivising its low income / unskilled population to obtain the education necessary to build a more valueable skillset, which they could then leverage into a more economically rewarding career. Instead, they are supplementing the income of these employees to make it more comfortable (but still a long way from comfortable) to exist as an unskilled / low income resident.
Furthermore, LBs incentive to build a newly valuable skillset through education should tie into the education of these individuals' children. What are these folks doing to ensure that their kids do not pursue a similar unskilled / low income future which would place the same burden on themselves, and an even greater burden on LB (larger population of unskilled workers). Unfortunately, parents' lifestyle creates a cycle with their children that repeats itself. Many unskilled workers today would most commonly suggest that we will have even more from the next generation. That's a big problem.
To completment its incentive for a higher skilled workforce, LB should refocus their incentives / subsidies to the high growth industries that the new economy is forecasting - new energy / high tech / new media. By attacting such businesses to LB, it will providing an environment in which the pursuit of higher skilled jobs is a reality. Without this aspect, LB will not be able to create a realistic roadmap toward healthy, sustainable job creation and such a local economy.
With that said, it is important for LB to maintain diversity in its community. This is because diverse environments are always the most enriching in which to exist. Among other types of diversity, this includes economic diversity. While not encouraging low income / unskilled roles in our community, we must also make sure that we never exclude them - make available mixed use housing, public education, etc).
RJ_in_LB
· 11 months ago
I do agree that there is a direct correlation between one's wages and the fair value of their skill set (the message that I think LBRESIDENT was trying to send). But, I do not think that Kobe or Brad are good examples to support your or LBRESIDENT's point - they would be doing just as well without a union due to the nature of their industries (entertainment).
Fundamentally, I think there is a problem. The problem is that there are so many LB residence that only qualify for jobs that fall into the unskilled and low income categories. This in itself is an issue. Note: These pay rates do not break any wage laws, nor do they underrepresent the value that I believe the employees are delivering.
By increasing the minimum wage for unskilled jobs, we would be positively reinforcing the pursuit of such jobs. This will make our community and its individuals less productive, less successful economically, and less educated.
LB should be incentivising its low income / unskilled population to obtain the education necessary to build a more valueable skillset, which they could then leverage into a more economically rewarding career. Instead, they are supplementing the income of these employees to make it more comfortable (but still a long way from comfortable) to exist as an unskilled / low income resident.
Furthermore, LBs incentive to build a newly valuable skillset through education should tie into the education of these individuals' children. What are these folks doing to ensure that their kids do not pursue a similar unskilled / low income future which would place the same burden on themselves, and an even greater burden on LB (larger population of unskilled workers). Unfortunately, parents' lifestyle creates a cycle with their children that repeats itself. Many unskilled workers today would most commonly suggest that we will have even more from the next generation. That's a big problem.
To completment its incentive for a higher skilled workforce, LB should refocus their incentives / subsidies to the high growth industries that the new economy is forecasting - new energy / high tech / new media. By attacting such businesses to LB, it will providing an environment in which the pursuit of higher skilled jobs is a reality. Without this aspect, LB will not be able to create a realistic roadmap toward healthy, sustainable job creation and such a local economy.
With that said, it is important for LB to maintain diversity in its community. This is because diverse environments are always the most enriching in which to exist. Among other types of diversity, this includes economic diversity. While not encouraging low income / unskilled roles in our community, we must also make sure that we never exclude them - make available mixed use housing, public education, etc).
lbresident
· 11 months ago
That is not the point I made. Nor do I agree with YOUR conclusion.
It is an economic fact that when government sets a minimum/living wage, ultimately the market adjusts and the articial wage does not accomplish what was intended.
Live_in_LB
· 11 months ago
(From RJ_In_LB) RE minimum wage, there is a variety of different data that rolls into the final determination of minumum wage, including anticipated market adjustments and anticipated cost of living. At its essance, the governments set minimum wage as an estimate that is supposed to account for all of these things. Like any estimate, there will be a deviation from what actually occurs. So, of course, in some cases the market rate for base wages and the cost of living outpace the minimum wage. We've seen that regularly in the US since minimum wage system began due to the consistent and tremendous growth that our economy has experienced. Especially post World War 2, which is almost the entire existence of the minimum wage.
Right now, business is in a downturn and the supply of unskilled workers is growing rapidly (probably faster than any other pool). By that same token, the supply of manufacturing and light industrial labor has increased with globalization that has occurred during the past 10 years (primarily the inclusion of India and China as major players). It is also expected that we may enter a deflationary period due to the significant drop off in spending (personal and commercial), as seen in the news (although who knows will all the cash that the government is printing). But, I doubt you would suggest that the minimum wage be lowered as a result...
Furthermore, tell me how your quote "Kobe Bryant makes more money than Derek Fisher because he has a stronger skill set" does not coincide with my point that "there is a direct correlation between one's wages and the fair value of their skill set (the message that I think LBRESIDENT was trying to send). Seems like the same point to me.
And as to your disagreement with my conclusion, please be specific. I'm interested in understanding your point. Different points of view have always been a great way for me to learn.
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. I appreciate it.
lbresident
· 10 months ago
my reply was to Dave W. Somehow I mistakenly posted as if it were to you. Actually it seems we agree on many things.
Dave Wielenga
· 10 months ago
My point is that your example used industries that are COMPLETELY unionized. You cited extraordinary "workers"--Kobe Bryant and Brad Pitt--rising to great heights, but the collective bargaining agreement sets a base wage from which merit pay can be determined. Among the other aspects of collectively bargained contracts that have enabled Kobe and Pitt to thrive--the threat of a strike, the right (in the case of the NBA) to play out one's contract rather than be held in perpetuity by one team, the right (in the case of screen actors) to be free of the studio system. The market adjusted to those contracts, and to nothing else. Without those union contracts, Kobe and Pitt wouldn't have a thing to bargain with...kind of like the hotel workers now.
lbresident
· 10 months ago
First, that isn't true. Union or no union, Kobe would be making lots of money. He has tons of leverage because he is arguably the best at what he does in the world and has a skillset that is not easily replaceable. The union is irrelevant.
Second, my point is not that unions prevent people from making money. My point is that unions largely result in environments where performance is not rewarded as much as tenure. (Ex. teacher's union. There is no incentive to be a good teacher. As long as you don't steal or moleste a kid you won't get fired and you will make as much money as any other teacher. The teacher's union has created a horrible system that hurts education.)
If you have differentiated skills you will make more money. If you don't you will and should make less. Artificially creating wage floors results in many problems including higher prices, inflation, and reduced incentive to achieve.
Really, I'm just so tired of all the whining. If you want to make more money, improve yourself and do it. Nobody is stopping you unless you're in the teacher's union. Then you can't make more money for being great.
We're not going to agree on this. You think unions are good for the economy and workers. I think they slow the economy and encourage workers to make excuses for failure and accept mediocrity in themselves.
Dave Wielenga
· 10 months ago
Did you have fun over the weekend? Unions brought you that...and think of all the productivity that has been lost by not working 24/7.
Dave Wielenga
· 10 months ago
Actually, here are the points I ought to make. First, that you really can't positively refer to workers in industries that are unionized as examples of why unions are bad. Find other examples, I guess. But the other thing is that I believe that a world with unions is a second-best word---second best to a world in which workers are treated well enough that they don't have to go through the time-and-dues-consuming hassle of forming and operating unions. Unions are a response to poor management, and often a last resort. That's why they are so difficult to organize. If these hotel workers were being paid a living wage with basic benefits there would be no argument. But the hotels in Long Beach are being subsidized by taxpayer money to create jobs that bring down the quality of life and further burden the taxpayer. That's my only point; spend taxpayer dollars more wisely. And don't look at a poor person and use them as a way to make yourself feel better---as some kind of measuring stick that says that because you are not poor you are somehow better. That's not the point of the American experience; it's contrary to what's written on the Statue of Liberty.
lbresident
· 10 months ago
I never said I was better than a poor person. Your comment is insulting.
All I'm saying is if you're poor, and you don't like it, do something about it. Improve your skills and get a better paying job. Don't say, I have this low paying job and I should be paid more just because I feel like I should make more money.
Dave Wielenga
· 10 months ago
What you are saying is that if you have the proper skill set to make a good living it is a reflection on what kind of person you are. I am assuming you have the "skill set" necessary to thrive or at least survive, and from that perspective you are judging yourself better than those who dont---as if economic success were totally and completely a matter of hard work. These people work hard. I'm sure, too, that it takes some imagination and work for these hotel execs to get millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies---that is part of their skill set, then? Is it a part of their set that you admire? Or should we make them rise or fall on the quality of the hotel they offer and how many guests they attract? Dude, they've soaked up millions and millions and millions.
John_B
· 10 months ago
Dave: I disagree with you and others on several points here and I say that even as I, myself, currently benefit in some ways from union membership.
I'm working on a column on another site that will explain...at least to the best of my admittedly limited abilities...where I part philosophical company with you as well as with the LAANE study you are citing.
But for now I'll simply offer this: The deplorable wages and abysmal working conditions prevalent when unions were originally formed to address them have long since been mitigated if not altogether eradicated...at least in this country.
Public and private sector employees are now protected by literally thousands of federal and state laws that mandate everything from minimum workplace safety standards to minimum wages and everything in between.
The primary purpose that labor unions now serve is as a vehicle through which employees may engage in collective bargaining with employers. This can be a valuable and sometimes extremely effective tool in negotiating for *better* (not basic...not minimal...and not so-called "living") wages and working conditions, and all persons who are so inclined should have an opportunity to participate in such a process if they so choose.
But, thankfully, there remains in this great nation the concept of a free labor market, wherein the buyer of labor and the seller of labor are supposed to be able to come together and negotiate in good faith for terms and conditions that best suit each. And each should be able to engage in such negotiations free from undue governmental interference.
This LAANE study is advocating that, among other things, City Leaders explore policy options for raising standards at hotels.
This recommendation is double-speak that, in essence, means that they would like the Long Beach to pass a so-called living wage ordinance similar to that enacted in Los Angeles in 1997.
Such legislative mandates (above and beyond existing minimum wage limit and safe working condition laws) have the net effect of harming the very same low-skilled, low paid, employment sector that they are intended to help.
To quote a PPIC Study on this very topic from 2005: “…Although living wages offer some assistance to some low-income families, they are not a panacea for the problem of low-wage work and poverty”.
I submit that the better approach is to allow prospective employers who refuse to offer competitive wages to suffer by their own hands. Eventually their good employees will seek employment elsewhere, where they can be paid what they feel they should be.
Thus the recalcitrant employer's product and or service will ultimately suffer and, likewise, so will its business. This condition will ultimately cost the employer more (in lost business) to continue to refuse to offer competitive wages than it would to simply raise its salaries.
This is a free market solution that does not involve artificial government interventions and has no down side for either party.
Individual liberty is thus enhanced and upheld, rather than circumvented and eroded.
Dave Wielenga
· 10 months ago
Hi John. Haven't seen you here in awhile. The problem with the LB tourism industry is precisely that the "free market" is not at work. The city subsidizes many hotels, for instance---and outrageously in some cases. If you research the history of the LB Hyatt, for example, you will be stunned at the amounts of money it was advanced, how the city stepped in when the hotel failed to pay its bills, taking on some of those payments and negotiating some of them down with the hotel's major credito, Mitsubishi, and then being sued by the hotel (and paying up) millions of dollars the hotel said it lost when the LB Convention Convention Center was being expanded (which, of course, was done to INCREASE visitors to Long Beach hotels). Against this kind of government subsidy, low income workers have no chance to allow the free market to play out. The thing about this kind of free market is that the subsidized business takes the profits but none of the risks. Wouldn't we all like to have our investments and businesses protected like this? It would be so much easier to develop that "skill set" that others are talking about. And it is this kind of audit I think is necessary -- to either see how we can make the Long Beach tourism industry stand on its own or else to equally spread around the government help.
John_B
· 10 months ago
Dave: Been busy writing.
We're referring to different markets. You're talking about the travel, tourism, convention and hospitality markets and I'm talking about the labor market.
They're inter-related, certainly, but separate nonetheless.
The various hotel development subsidies do not, and should not, provide strings that the City can later tug upon for the sole purpose of furthering the unapologetically pro-union and "living wage" agendas of special interest groups like LAANE and LBCGJHC.
I would argue that it is precisely *because* of some of these subsidies that many low-income workers have decent jobs at all. Absent some of these subsidies some of these hotels may not have been built or may well have failed after opening for business.
Hundreds of jobs would therefore never have existed or thus been maintained.
I disagree with your assertion that acceptance of a government subsidy completely eliminates risk. Any business venture involves risk, especially in the past two decades, and the City’s subsidies have served to mitigate that risk for some businesses for various reasons, not the least of which is so that many of our residents could, indeed, find and maintain decent and gainful employment.
There is much fault to be found with this LAANE study but, as mentioned, I’ll develop that in my own column elsewhere.
Keep up the great work, Dave!
dare_to_care
· 10 months ago
Dave, you are not going to convince lbresident he is an elitist because close-minded people are incapable of seeing outside of themselves. Everything I've read by lbresident smacks of wanton narcissism. This person pompously eats breakfast while admiring the reflection in the mirror. Unions were invented to protect workers from avaricious industrialists. By lbresident's definition, the working poor in any citizenry would soon be the former middle class by default. The inherent systemic flaw is that we expect the subsidized industry to regulate itself (much like Wall Street, the banking industry and other corporate welfare beneficiaries) and operate as trickle-down economic engines. The result is that greed forbids any trickling down and the engine stalls because of a clogged carburetor .
geo
· 10 months ago
President Kennedy's Sec of Health, Education and Welfare, John W. Gardner said it best:
The society which scorns excellence in plumbing as a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy: neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water. John W. Gardner
All Comments
1. End affordable housing
2. End welfare subsidized services such as healthcare and childcare
3. Educate people that housekeeping jobs at hotels are not "pathways" to the middle class and shouldn't be. They are low wage jobs. If people want to be middle class they need to develop a skill set. Housekeeping jobs should be viewed as jobs to make ends meat until you can develop your skill set.
We can't continue offering up more homeless, welfare, housing services than any other surrounding city and then act surprised when poor people are drawn to the area.
As an aside, I remember watching the council meeting when they were talking about this living wage BS and a woman complained she had been working at a hotel downtown for 10 years and she only made $10/hour. She complained in SPANISH. You've been here 10 years and you haven't learned English and you have the arrogance to complain about your wages. Unbelievable.
Our problems are not because of the tourism we have invested in. They are because our council members are bought and paid for by unions and special interest groups and they make decisions with a socialist style agenda.
Also, you think it doesn't take skills to clean up 20 guest rooms a day in 8 hours? Think again. These jobs require hard work and organization. And, finally, do you REALLY expect everyone to go to school to get the training they need to be middle class? That's ridiculous. These jobs will always exist and will need people to do them, but that doesn't mean the workers should be treated like garbage.
Doing 1,2,and 3 would at a minimum stop poverty from growing in LB and likely would decrease it. There will always be people who have bad luck, make bad decisions, or some combination. Long Beach is set up to attract those people. Other cities are not.
I don't expect everyone to go to school to get training to be middle class. But I expect anyone who wants to be middle class to make good decisions and prioritize making themselves marketable. Working in a hotel as a maid for 10 years is not nor should it be a path to being middle class. People need to have that expectation and act according to their goals.
Really? So I guess that means Long Beach should be the only one in California with poverty, guess what? It's not.
We're in a terrible economy and there are even people with college degrees taking
$10 hr jobs, so let's rethink the generalizations and stereotypes here. We need to stop playing the NIMBY game, we're all affected by the declining quality of life in a large portion of our city.
"Pay is based on how unique the skill set is and how hard that skill set is to find/hire"
Let's try to use this yardstick to measure most high-profile entertainment, sports and politico jobs and see how accurate it is.
I"m not playing the NIMBY game. I don't want this stuff anywhere (but especially my backyard). These are destructive programs that do not motivate people to strive to be their best.
Go ahead, use that yardstic. Kobe Bryant makes more money than Derek Fisher because he has a stronger skill set. Brad Pitt makes more money than other actors because he brings in more money for producers.
Can someone please name one hotel or restaurant in Long Beach
where the employer is holding a gun to a worker's head forcing them to
work?
These hotels provide excellent entry level opportunities for large numbers
of people especially for students and seniors who wish to go back to work.
For those that want to remain in that industry routes for advancement are available
to the diligent and determined.For those that are not,their best option is to go forth
to whence they came.
Do Long Beach hotel pay wages that are similar to hotels in other cities?
Less low income housing will result in fewer Long Beach residents living in poverty. If that means the hotels have a smaller potential workforce and have to pay higher wages, so be it. But that is the way to fix this problem, not through some arbitrary regulation.
Now, is Long Beach generating tourism revenues to sustain wage increases for hospitality workers? Perhaps, more quantifiable data should be provided before anyone can make that assertion.
The city doesn't invest in youth development programs; they're always cutting funding for schools and after-school programs. Libraries and community centers are underfunded and constantly "on the block" for cuts as well.
Someone mentioned learning new skills ... well let's see, the state is again cutting millions from the community college and university systems which are then forced to cancel classes and turn students (potentially thousands) away. So then where then do people go to acquire these skills?
If we don't invest in our future, what kind of jobs should we expect to be available here for our residents?
Programs may be getting cut, but anyone who wants an education can get one. Stop making excuses for people and they'll stop making them for themselves.
We have inexpensive realestate, great public transportion access from and to LA, an airport, and the west coast's largest port. But, we still can't make that work to our advantage. It's pretty sad.
To directly address our city's investment in LB tourism.. I do not know all of the facts. But, from a common sense perspective I look at a So Cal visitor's other options:
1. Disneyland
2. Hollywood
3. Other beaches in OC or LA
Trying to compete with these alternatives seems foolish.... throwing good money after bad money.
Neighborhoods will regentrify and improve and tourists will actually stay here in Long Beach longer than their convention stay. With the breakwater gone, I forsee the potential of Long Beach being the next Downtown San Diego, with a vibe in between of Manhattan Beach and Huntington Beach.
2. In response to the Working hard for less pay; these workers work hard and receive minimal pay, the jobs are entry level with minimal room for promotions, they take these jobs because it is the work they can get.
3. The city should invest in its citizens by investing in good jobs, not subsidizing jobs that produce poverty.
** good jobs pay well, provide benefits, treat employees with respect, and provide enough stability that workers are not forced to work more than one full time job, live in poor housing, house with mulitple families, or require state subsidizes.
4. It is nature for cities to compete, but competing for business without regards for their citizens is neglecting the role of a city.
I hope people engage the city to be respectful and responsible.
Fundamentally, I think there is a problem. The problem is that there are so many LB residence that only qualify for jobs that fall into the unskilled and low income categories. This in itself is an issue. Note: These pay rates do not break any wage laws, nor do they underrepresent the value that I believe the employees are delivering.
By increasing the minimum wage for unskilled jobs, we would be positively reinforcing the pursuit of such jobs. This will make our community and its individuals less productive, less successful economically, and less educated.
LB should be incentivising its low income / unskilled population to obtain the education necessary to build a more valueable skillset, which they could then leverage into a more economically rewarding career. Instead, they are supplementing the income of these employees to make it more comfortable (but still a long way from comfortable) to exist as an unskilled / low income resident.
Furthermore, LBs incentive to build a newly valuable skillset through education should tie into the education of these individuals' children. What are these folks doing to ensure that their kids do not pursue a similar unskilled / low income future which would place the same burden on themselves, and an even greater burden on LB (larger population of unskilled workers). Unfortunately, parents' lifestyle creates a cycle with their children that repeats itself. Many unskilled workers today would most commonly suggest that we will have even more from the next generation. That's a big problem.
To completment its incentive for a higher skilled workforce, LB should refocus their incentives / subsidies to the high growth industries that the new economy is forecasting - new energy / high tech / new media. By attacting such businesses to LB, it will providing an environment in which the pursuit of higher skilled jobs is a reality. Without this aspect, LB will not be able to create a realistic roadmap toward healthy, sustainable job creation and such a local economy.
With that said, it is important for LB to maintain diversity in its community. This is because diverse environments are always the most enriching in which to exist. Among other types of diversity, this includes economic diversity. While not encouraging low income / unskilled roles in our community, we must also make sure that we never exclude them - make available mixed use housing, public education, etc).
Fundamentally, I think there is a problem. The problem is that there are so many LB residence that only qualify for jobs that fall into the unskilled and low income categories. This in itself is an issue. Note: These pay rates do not break any wage laws, nor do they underrepresent the value that I believe the employees are delivering.
By increasing the minimum wage for unskilled jobs, we would be positively reinforcing the pursuit of such jobs. This will make our community and its individuals less productive, less successful economically, and less educated.
LB should be incentivising its low income / unskilled population to obtain the education necessary to build a more valueable skillset, which they could then leverage into a more economically rewarding career. Instead, they are supplementing the income of these employees to make it more comfortable (but still a long way from comfortable) to exist as an unskilled / low income resident.
Furthermore, LBs incentive to build a newly valuable skillset through education should tie into the education of these individuals' children. What are these folks doing to ensure that their kids do not pursue a similar unskilled / low income future which would place the same burden on themselves, and an even greater burden on LB (larger population of unskilled workers). Unfortunately, parents' lifestyle creates a cycle with their children that repeats itself. Many unskilled workers today would most commonly suggest that we will have even more from the next generation. That's a big problem.
To completment its incentive for a higher skilled workforce, LB should refocus their incentives / subsidies to the high growth industries that the new economy is forecasting - new energy / high tech / new media. By attacting such businesses to LB, it will providing an environment in which the pursuit of higher skilled jobs is a reality. Without this aspect, LB will not be able to create a realistic roadmap toward healthy, sustainable job creation and such a local economy.
With that said, it is important for LB to maintain diversity in its community. This is because diverse environments are always the most enriching in which to exist. Among other types of diversity, this includes economic diversity. While not encouraging low income / unskilled roles in our community, we must also make sure that we never exclude them - make available mixed use housing, public education, etc).
It is an economic fact that when government sets a minimum/living wage, ultimately the market adjusts and the articial wage does not accomplish what was intended.
Right now, business is in a downturn and the supply of unskilled workers is growing rapidly (probably faster than any other pool). By that same token, the supply of manufacturing and light industrial labor has increased with globalization that has occurred during the past 10 years (primarily the inclusion of India and China as major players). It is also expected that we may enter a deflationary period due to the significant drop off in spending (personal and commercial), as seen in the news (although who knows will all the cash that the government is printing). But, I doubt you would suggest that the minimum wage be lowered as a result...
Furthermore, tell me how your quote "Kobe Bryant makes more money than Derek Fisher because he has a stronger skill set" does not coincide with my point that "there is a direct correlation between one's wages and the fair value of their skill set (the message that I think LBRESIDENT was trying to send). Seems like the same point to me.
And as to your disagreement with my conclusion, please be specific. I'm interested in understanding your point. Different points of view have always been a great way for me to learn.
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. I appreciate it.
Second, my point is not that unions prevent people from making money. My point is that unions largely result in environments where performance is not rewarded as much as tenure. (Ex. teacher's union. There is no incentive to be a good teacher. As long as you don't steal or moleste a kid you won't get fired and you will make as much money as any other teacher. The teacher's union has created a horrible system that hurts education.)
If you have differentiated skills you will make more money. If you don't you will and should make less. Artificially creating wage floors results in many problems including higher prices, inflation, and reduced incentive to achieve.
Really, I'm just so tired of all the whining. If you want to make more money, improve yourself and do it. Nobody is stopping you unless you're in the teacher's union. Then you can't make more money for being great.
We're not going to agree on this. You think unions are good for the economy and workers. I think they slow the economy and encourage workers to make excuses for failure and accept mediocrity in themselves.
All I'm saying is if you're poor, and you don't like it, do something about it. Improve your skills and get a better paying job. Don't say, I have this low paying job and I should be paid more just because I feel like I should make more money.
I'm working on a column on another site that will explain...at least to the best of my admittedly limited abilities...where I part philosophical company with you as well as with the LAANE study you are citing.
But for now I'll simply offer this: The deplorable wages and abysmal working conditions prevalent when unions were originally formed to address them have long since been mitigated if not altogether eradicated...at least in this country.
Public and private sector employees are now protected by literally thousands of federal and state laws that mandate everything from minimum workplace safety standards to minimum wages and everything in between.
The primary purpose that labor unions now serve is as a vehicle through which employees may engage in collective bargaining with employers. This can be a valuable and sometimes extremely effective tool in negotiating for *better* (not basic...not minimal...and not so-called "living") wages and working conditions, and all persons who are so inclined should have an opportunity to participate in such a process if they so choose.
But, thankfully, there remains in this great nation the concept of a free labor market, wherein the buyer of labor and the seller of labor are supposed to be able to come together and negotiate in good faith for terms and conditions that best suit each. And each should be able to engage in such negotiations free from undue governmental interference.
This LAANE study is advocating that, among other things, City Leaders explore policy options for raising standards at hotels.
This recommendation is double-speak that, in essence, means that they would like the Long Beach to pass a so-called living wage ordinance similar to that enacted in Los Angeles in 1997.
Such legislative mandates (above and beyond existing minimum wage limit and safe working condition laws) have the net effect of harming the very same low-skilled, low paid, employment sector that they are intended to help.
To quote a PPIC Study on this very topic from 2005: “…Although living wages offer some assistance to some low-income families, they are not a panacea for the problem of low-wage work and poverty”.
I submit that the better approach is to allow prospective employers who refuse to offer competitive wages to suffer by their own hands. Eventually their good employees will seek employment elsewhere, where they can be paid what they feel they should be.
Thus the recalcitrant employer's product and or service will ultimately suffer and, likewise, so will its business. This condition will ultimately cost the employer more (in lost business) to continue to refuse to offer competitive wages than it would to simply raise its salaries.
This is a free market solution that does not involve artificial government interventions and has no down side for either party.
Individual liberty is thus enhanced and upheld, rather than circumvented and eroded.
We're referring to different markets. You're talking about the travel, tourism, convention and hospitality markets and I'm talking about the labor market.
They're inter-related, certainly, but separate nonetheless.
The various hotel development subsidies do not, and should not, provide strings that the City can later tug upon for the sole purpose of furthering the unapologetically pro-union and "living wage" agendas of special interest groups like LAANE and LBCGJHC.
I would argue that it is precisely *because* of some of these subsidies that many low-income workers have decent jobs at all. Absent some of these subsidies some of these hotels may not have been built or may well have failed after opening for business.
Hundreds of jobs would therefore never have existed or thus been maintained.
I disagree with your assertion that acceptance of a government subsidy completely eliminates risk. Any business venture involves risk, especially in the past two decades, and the City’s subsidies have served to mitigate that risk for some businesses for various reasons, not the least of which is so that many of our residents could, indeed, find and maintain decent and gainful employment.
There is much fault to be found with this LAANE study but, as mentioned, I’ll develop that in my own column elsewhere.
Keep up the great work, Dave!
The society which scorns excellence in plumbing as a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy
because it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy: neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water.
John W. Gardner