$15 minimum wage to cost California 400,000 jobs

California reached a deal on legislation to raise the state minimum wage across all businesses to $15 per hour by 2023, a move that could cost the state hundreds of thousands of jobs, according to a new report.

A study conducted by the Employment Policies Institute (EPI), which analyzed employment trends from 1990 through 2017, found that each 10% increase in the minimum wage in the Golden State has resulted in a corresponding 2% decline in employment for affected employees. The impact was larger, 5%, for lower-paid workers. By those estimates, the EPI projects that the pending $15 minimum wage hike would cost California 400,000 private sector jobs, with heavy losses in both the foodservice and retail sectors.

While the EPI acknowledges that real firms could “respond to higher minimum wages in ways that cause divergent effects,” it says “what is not in dispute” is that “rising minimum wage has depressed employment opportunities in the most heavily-impacted industries.”

As of January 1, California’s minimum wage will increase to $11 per hour from the current level of $10.50 per hour for businesses with 26 employees or more. From that point, it will be a $1 per year increase trajectory through 2022. Businesses with 25 employees or less will reach the $15 per hour threshold by 2023. …

Read the full article from Fox Business

State job-creation incentives fail to produce desired results

JobsIn February 2014, Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration unveiled an Economic Development Initiative to replace an enterprise zone program that had fallen out of favor after nearly three decades. Enterprise zones offered tax incentives to promote the starting of businesses in areas with high unemployment, but many analyses concluded they didn’t have a substantial positive effect. Now a centerpiece of Brown’s replacement initiative is offering up similar mixed-to-poor results.

The California Competes program was initially billed as providing $180 million through the end of fiscal 2014-15 for tax credits to lure businesses to the Golden State or to keep them from leaving. As the Sacramento Bee reported at the time, emergency regulations were hastened into place to get the program up and running.

Panorea Avdis, the chief deputy director of the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, justified the move in a memo obtained by the Bee: “This program must go into effect immediately to help minimize the migration of business to other states and to encourage growth and expansion in this state.”

Four and a half years later, the sense of urgency among Brown aides about getting California Competes started is hard to square with its disappointing results. A recent Legislative Analyst’s Office report offered many criticisms:

– Slightly more than a third of awarded credits – 35 percent – went to companies that primarily competed with other California businesses, meaning the credits create no additional economic activity, lead to an unfair competitive advantage for firms getting the credits and consume state resources that could have been use for constructive purposes.

– There were no metrics to judge the effectiveness of the remaining 65 percent of credits, which went to companies that sold goods or services both in California and out.

– The size of the hiring and investment commitments the companies made per $100,000 of tax credits has declined steadily in recent years, reflecting a lack of enthusiasm about the value of the credits.

– The interest in the program had waned among small businesses, which had 25 percent of available annual tax credits set aside for their use. The LAO noted that in the last fiscal year – 2016-17 – only 49 percent of the credits were awarded, or about $30 million.

LAO says close program, but role in Amazon bid may provide cover

“The executive branch has made a good-faith effort to implement California Competes, but the problems described above are largely unavoidable,” the LAO wrote. “We recommend that the Legislature end California Competes. In general, broad‑based tax relief – for all businesses – is preferable to targeted tax incentives.”

Because the program loses its authority to grant tax credits at the end of fiscal 2017-18, the LAO report may shape the Legislature’s and the Brown administration’s decision on what to do about California Competes. The LAO says if the program is retained, its eligibility rules should be tightened up and other provisions should be revised to make it more likely the credits go to companies facing competition from rival firms in other states.

But at least until Amazon makes its decision on where to locate its second North American headquarters, the LAO’s call to shut down California Competes is unlikely to be heeded. In October, some $200 million over five years in California Competes funding was listed as the single biggest incentive to get Amazon to build its second home in California – topping the long list of tax and regulatory incentives that the Brown administration offered Amazon as enticements.

If California Competes is eventually shuttered, some state politicians are likely to strengthen their calls for the full revival of another economic development program shut down at Gov. Brown’s behest – redevelopment. In theory, redevelopment takes a portion of incoming local government revenue and directs it to projects with the promise to improve the local economy or to provide needed facilities.

Critics of redevelopment say it has a long history of being used for crony capitalism in California and that the diverted revenue often goes to cover routine City Hall expenses. But former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has made reviving redevelopment a key focus of his 2018 gubernatorial campaign, arguing that it is essential to building more affordable housing and responding to California’s housing crisis.

This article was originally published by CalWatchdog.com

4 signs California’s job market is cooling

As reported by the Orange County Register:

Have California bosses changed their hearts about hiring?

After six straight years of job gains, 2017 started with the slowest employment upswing since the first year of the recovery from the Great Recession.

Using data from the state Employment Development Department and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, here are four reasons behind the cooling.

No. 1: Fewer layoffs

California bosses have a low-risk way to keep payrolls up: skip the pink slips!

Just look at initial unemployment claims, seen as a snapshot of how many employees have recently lost their jobs. State employment counters report that in the year ended in February, 2.35 million unemployment claims were made.

That may sound like a like of layoffs but it’s actually historically small.

For starters, it’s the slowest annualized pace of Californians filing for jobless claims since December 2007. …

Click here to read the full article

So this is the Recovery? Californians not feeling it

JobsIs the Great Recession over?

In California, the signals are mixed.

On one hand, a recent study of U.S. Census data by the Washington, D.C.-based Economic Innovation Group found that Los Angeles County led the nation with the largest number of jobs added, a total of 352,840 between 2010 and 2014.

The good news extended statewide. Twenty counties in the U.S. accounted for half of net new businesses established in those years, and five of those counties are in California.

Yet the latest Field Poll found that 74 percent of California voters list the economy and jobs as their top concern.

Is that just habit? Or something else?

A closer look reveals a problem of definitions, starting with: What is a job?

“People are considered employed if they did any work at all for pay or profit during the survey reference week,” explains the website of the U.S. government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, referring to its monthly survey of 60,000 households, “This includes all part-time and temporary work, as well as regular full-time, year-round employment.”

So when people pick up part-time or temporary work for a few days or even for a few hours, the government counts them as “employed” at “a job.”

Some people are counted as “employed” at “a job” even if they don’t get paid.

Here’s an example from the BLS website: “Garrett is 16 years old, and he has no job from which he receives any pay or profit. However, Garrett does help with the regular chores around his parents’ farm and spends about 20 hours each week doing so.”

Here’s another one: “Lisa spends most of her time taking care of her home and children, but she helps in her husband’s computer software business all day Friday and Saturday.”

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Garrett and Lisa have “jobs.” They’re in a category called ”unpaid family workers,” which includes …

Click here to read the full article.

This piece was originally published by the L.A. Daily News

California Chamber releases list of ‘job killer’ bills

As reported by the Sacramento Bee:

The California Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday released a list of 18 bills it says will reduce jobs and hurt the state economy.

The chamber introduces it’s so-called “job killers” every spring and boasts a high success rate of blocking bills on the list from becoming law. Critics question the organization’s methodology to determine the list.

All of the bills labeled job killers this year were introduced by Democratic lawmakers and four carried over from 2015.

“As everyone knows, California has areas that are booming economically and other areas that are stagnating,” said Allan Zaremberg, president and chief executive officer of the California Chamber, in a statement. “Each part of California has unique problems and these job killers will negatively impact future economic …

Click here to read the full article

If You Want a Job, Where Should You Move?

JobsSince the U.S. economy imploded in 2008, there’s been a steady shift in leadership in job growth among our major metropolitan areas. In the earliest years, the cities that did the best were those on the East Coast that hosted the two prime beneficiaries of Washington’s resuscitation efforts, the financial industry and the federal bureaucracy. Then the baton was passed to metro areas riding the boom in the energy sector, which, if not totally dead in its tracks, is clearly weaker.

Right now, job creation momentum is the strongest in tech-oriented metropolises and Sun Belt cities with lower costs, particularly the still robust economies of Texas.

Topping our annual ranking of the best big cities for jobs are the main metro areas of Silicon Valley: the San Francisco-Redwood City-South San Francisco Metropolitan Division, followed by San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, swapping their positions from last year.

Our rankings are based on short-, medium- and long-term job creation, going back to 2003, and factor in momentum — whether growth is slowing or accelerating. We have compiled separate rankings for America’s 70 largest metropolitan statistical areas (those with nonfarm employment over 450,000), which are our focus this week, as well as medium-size metro areas (between 150,000 and 450,000 nonfarm jobs) and small ones (less than 150,000 nonfarm jobs) in order to make the comparisons more relevant to each category. (For a detailed description of our methodology, click here.)

An Economy Fit For Geeks

Venture capital and private-equity firms keep pouring money into U.S. technology companies, lured by the promise of huge IPO returns. Last year was the best for new stock offerings since the peak of the dot-com bubble, with 71 biotech IPOs and 55 tech IPOs. It’s continuing to fuel strong job creation in Silicon Valley. Employment expanded 4.8% in the San Francisco Metropolitan Division in 2014, which includes the job-rich suburban expanses of San Mateo to the south, and employment is up 21.2% since 2009. This has been paced by growth in professional business services jobs in the area, up 9% last year, and in information jobs, which includes many social media functions – information employment expanded 8.3% last year and is up 28.7% since 2011.

San Jose which, like San Francisco, was devastated in the tech crash a decade ago, has also rebounded smartly. The San Jose MSA clocked 4.9% job growth last year and 20.0% since 2009. Employment in manufacturing, once the heart of the local economy, has grown 8% since 2011, after a decade of sharp reversals, but the number of information jobs there has exploded, up 16% last year and 35.7% since 2011.

Meanwhile, there’s been a striking reversal of fortune in the greater Washington, D.C., area, while the greater New York area has also fallen off the pace. In the years after the crash, soaring federal spending pushed Washington-Arlington-Alexandria to as high as fifth on our annual list of the best cities for jobs; this year it’s a meager 47th, with job growth of 1.5% in 2014, following meager 0.2% growth in 2013, while Northern Virginia (50th) and Silver Spring-Frederick-Rockville (64th) also lost ground, dropping, respectively, five and 15 places.

Job growth has also slowed in the greater New York region, which also was an early star performer in the immediate aftermath of the recession, in part due to the bank bailout that consolidated financial institutions in their strongest home region. Virtually all the areas that make up greater New York have lost ground in our ranking: the New York City MSA has fallen to 17th place from seventh last year, as employment growth tailed off to 2.6% in 2014 from 3.2% in 2013. Meanwhile Nassau-Suffolk ranks 49th, Rockland-Westchester 60th and Newark is second from the bottom among the biggest metro areas in 69th place.

The Shift To ‘Opportunity Cities’ Continues

Not every tech hot spot has the Bay Area’s advantages, which include venture capital, the presence of the world’s top technology companies and a host of people with the know-how to start and grow companies.

But other metro areas have something Silicon Valley lacks: affordable housing. Most of the rest of our top 15 metro areas have far lower home prices than the Bay Area, or for that matter Boston, Los Angeles or New York. And they also have experienced strong job growth, often across a wider array of industries, which provides opportunities for a broader portion of the population.

The combination of lower prices and strong job opportunities are what earns them our label of “opportunity cities.” The Bay Area may attract many of the best and brightest, but it is too expensive for most. Despite the current boom, the area’s population growth has been quite modest — San Jose has had an average population growth rate of 1.5% over the past four years. In contrast, seven of our top 10 metro areas, including third place Dallas-Plano-Irving, Texas, and No. 4 Austin, Texas, are also in the top 10 in terms of population growth since 2000. If prices and costs are reasonable, people will go to places where work is most abundant.

In the Dallas metro area, the job count grew 4.2% last year, paced by an 18.6% expansion in professional business services, while overall employment is up 15.7% since 2009. Job growth last year in Austin, Texas, was a healthy 3.9%, while the information sector expanded by 4.7% and since 2011 by 17.8%.

Many Texas cities, of course, have benefited from the energy boom — the recent downturn in oil prices make it likely that growth, particularly in No. 6 Houston, will decelerate in coming years.

But what is most remarkable about the top-performing cities is the diversity of their economies. Most have tech clusters, but several, such as Houston, Nashville, Tenn., Dallas and Charlotte, N.C., have growing manufacturing, trade, transportation and business services sectors. The immediate prognosis, however, may be brightest in places like Denver and Orlando, where growth is less tied to energy than business services, trade and tourism. Nashville, which places fifth on our list, has particularly bright prospects, due not only to its growing tech and manufacturing economy, but also its strong health care sector which, according to one recent study, contributes an overall economic benefit of nearly $30 billion annually and more than 210,000 jobs to the local economy.

The Also-Rans

Some economies lower in our rankings have made strong improvements, notably Atlanta-Sandy Spring-Roswell, which rose to 12th this year, a jump of 12 places. Long a star performer, the Georgia metro area stumbled through the housing bust, but it appears to have regained its footing, with strong job growth across a host of fields from manufacturing and information to health, and particularly business services, a category in which employment has increased 24% since 2009.

In California, one big turnaround story has been the Riverside-San Bernardino area, which gained six places to rank 11th this year as it has again begun to benefit from migration caused by coastal Southern California’s impossibly high home prices.

Several mid-American metro areas also are showing strong improvement. Louisville-Jefferson County, Ky., jumped fifteen places to 21st, propelled by strong growth in manufacturing, business services and finance. Kansas City, Kan. (23rd), and Kansas City, Mo. (46th), both made double-digit jumps in our rankings. In Michigan, Detroit-Dearborn-Livonia, bolstered by the recovery of the auto industry, gained six places to 59th, while manufacturing hub Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills picked up two to 39th. These may not be high growth areas, but these metro area no longer consistently sit at the bottom of the list.

Losing Ground

One of the biggest resurgent stars in past rankings, New Orleans-Metairie, dropped 17 places to 43rd, while Oklahoma City fell 17 places to 33rd. These cities lack the economic diversity to withstand a long-term loss of energy jobs if the sector goes into a prolonged downturn.

Yet perhaps the most troubling among the also-rans are the metro areas that have remained steadily at the bottom. These are largely Rust Belt cities such as last place Camden, N.J., which has been at or near that position for years.

Future Prospects

Now the best prospects appear to be in tech-heavy regions, but it’s important to recognize that a key contributor to the tech sector’s frenzy of venture capital and IPOs had been the Federal Reserve’s unprecedented monetary interventions, which are now phasing out. As it is, headwinds to expansion in the Bay Area are strong. High housing prices, according to recent study, may make it very difficult for these companies to expand their local workforces. The median price of houses in tech suburbs like Los Gatos now stand at nearly $2 million — rich for all but a few — while downtown Palo Alto office rents have risen an impossible 43% in the last five years.

Companies like Google, which has run into opposition over its proposed new headquarters expansion, may choose to shift more employment to other tech centers, such as Austin, Denver, Seattle, Raleigh and Salt Lake City, where the cost of doing business tends to be less. Similarly the stronger dollar could erode the modest progress made by some industrial cities, such as Detroit and Warren, as it gives a strong advantage to foreign competitors.

Normally we would expect these processes to play out slowly. But in these turbulent times, it’s best to keep an eye out for disruptive changes — a new economic cataclysm, should one occur, could quickly shift the playing field once again.

Joel Kotkin is editor of NewGeography.com and Presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University, and Michael Shires is Associate Professor of Public Policy, Pepperdine University

Cross-posted at New Geography and Fox and Hounds Daily

CalChamber Unveils List of 2015 “Job Creator” Bills

Since 2008, CalChamber has been identifying bills that will improve the state’s job climate and stimulate our economy.  We put them on our annual “Job Creator” list hoping to put a spotlight on proposals that will encourage investment in our economy.

Last week, we released the 2015 “Job Creator” list.  This year’s list includes 11 bills that will improve our legal climate, lower costs for employers, spur tourism, and create construction jobs. The list follows recommendations made in our annual business issues guide, called “Foundation for a Better California.”

Each year we hope to have as many job creator bills on our list as we do on our job killer list.  Let’s hope our policy makers make that possible in the years to come! 

The list of 2015 job creator bills includes the following proposals:

Creates Construction Jobs

AB 35 (Chiu; D-San Francisco) Creates Affordable Housing Opportunities. Expands the existing low-income housing tax credit program, making the state better able to leverage an estimated $200 million more in Federal Tax Credits.

AB 323 (Olsen; R-Modesto) Expedites and Reduces Cost for Roadway Repair and Maintenance Projects. Streamlines infrastructure development by extending indefinitely the current CEQA exemption for certain roadway repair and maintenance projects.

AB 641 (Mayes; R-Yucca Valley) Expedites and Reduces Cost for Housing Projects. Streamlines and reduces regulatory burdens for the approval and construction of housing developments by providing an expedited review process under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Improved Legal Climate

AB 52 (Gray; D-Merced) Disability Access Litigation Reform.  Seeks to improve access for disabled customers and limit frivolous litigation against businesses for construction-related accessibility claims by providing an opportunity for the businesses to timely resolve any potential violations.

AB 54 (Olsen; R-Modesto) Disability Access Litigation Reform. Seeks to improve access for disabled patrons without harming businesses through frivolous lawsuits by providing businesses with a 60-day right to correct the violation for a claim based upon a constructed related accessibility standard that was changed or modified in the prior three years.

AB 588 (Grove; R-Bakersfield) Reduces Frivolous Litigation. Seeks to limit frivolous litigation under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, by allowing an employer a 33 day right to cure technical violations on an itemized wage statement that did not cause any injury to the employee.

AB 1252 (Jones; R-Santee) Protects Businesses from Proposition 65 Lawsuits. Provides needed relief to small businesses by prohibiting a person from bringing a Proposition 65 lawsuit against a business employing fewer than 25 employees. Failed passage in the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee, 04/14/15. Reconsideration Granted

AB 1470 (Alejo; D-Salinas) Reduction of Costly Employment Class Action Litigation. Limits frivolous class action litigation against employers in California who are creating high paying jobs by creating a rebuttable presumption that employees earning at least $100,000 and performing non-manual labor and at least one exempt duty are exempt from overtime requirements.

SB 67 (Galgiani; D-Stockton) Disability Access Litigation Reform. Seeks to limit frivolous litigation against small businesses and those that have sought to comply, by limiting remedies to injunctive relief and expanding the current period to correct any violation from 60 to 120 days.


SB 249 (Hueso; D-Logan Heights) Enhanced Driver’s License. Encourages international trade and tourism by authorizing the Department of Motor Vehicles to issue enhanced driver licenses to U.S. citizens to expedite legal traffic at the border.

Workplace Improvements/Training

AB 1038 (Jones; R-Santee) Flexible Workweek. Provides employers with the opportunity to accommodate employees’ needs as well as business demands by allowing employees to request a voluntary, flexible workweek agreement that can be repealed by the employee at any time with proper notice. Failed passage in the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee, 04/22/15. Reconsideration Granted.

Cumulative Job Creator Signatures

2014: 14 job creator bills identified, 5 sent to Governor, signs 5

2013: 16 job creator bills identified, 2 sent to Governor, signs 2

2012: 34 job creator bills identified, 9 sent to Governor, signs 9

2011: 5 job creator bills identified, 0 sent to Governor

2010: 16 job creator bills identified, 4 sent to Governor, signs 4

2009: 18 job creator bills identified, 2 sent to Governor, signs 2

2008: 3 job creator bills identified, 2 sent to Governor, signs 2

Originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Denise Davis is vice president, media relations and external affairs at Cal Chamber

2015 Job Killers — CalChamber Releases Its Preliminary Report

The California Chamber of Commerce yesterday released a preliminary list of “job killer” bills to call attention to the negative impact that 16 proposed measures would have on California’s job climate and economic recovery, should they become law.

Although we will be opposing a number of bills throughout this year, the ‘job killer’ list represents the worst of the worst. These proposals will unnecessarily increase costs on California employers that will likely lead to a loss of jobs.

The list is preliminary. We expect to add more bills to the list in the coming weeks as legislation is amended, and we will periodically release “job killer” watch updates as legislation changes. Please track the status of “job killer” bills on www.cajobkillers.com or by following @CAJobKillers on Twitter. 

Here is the preliminary list of 2015 “job killer” bills:

Increased Labor Costs

AB 357 (Chiu; D-San Francisco) Predictable Scheduling Mandate/Protected Leave of Absence — Imposes an unfair, one-size fits all, two-week notice scheduling mandate on certain employers that perform retail sales activity, and penalizes these employers with “additional pay” for making changes to the schedule with less than two weeks notice, and additionally imposes an unlimited, protected leave of absence from work as well as a broad new protected class of employees who are receiving public assistance or have an identified family member receiving such assistance.

SB 3 (Leno; D-San Francisco/ Leyva; D-Chino) Automatic Minimum Wage Increase— Unfairly increases’ employers costs while ignoring the economic factors or other costs of employers by increasing the minimum wage by $3.00 over the next two and a half years with automatic increases tied to inflation.

SB 406 (Jackson; D-Santa Barbara) Significant Expansion of California Family Rights Act — Creates less conformity with federal law by dramatically reducing the employee threshold from 50 to less than 5 employees and expanding the family members for whom leave may be taken, which will provide a California-only, separate 12 week protected leave of absence on both small and large employers to administer, thereby increasing costs and risk of litigation.

Increased Fuel Costs

SB 350 (de León; D-Los Angeles) Costly and Burdensome Regulations — Potentially increases costs and burdens on all Californians by mandating an arbitrary and unrealistic reduction of petroleum use by 50%, increasing the current Renewable Portfolio Standard to 50% and increasing energy efficiency in buildings by 50% all by 2030 without regard to the impact on individuals, jobs and the economy.

Tax Increases

ACA 4 (Frazier; D-Oakley) Lowers Vote Requirement for Tax Increases — Adds complexity and uncertainty to the current tax structure and pressure to increase taxes on commercial, industrial and residential property owners by giving local governments new authority to enact special taxes, including parcel taxes, by lowering the vote threshold from two-thirds to 55%.

SB 684 (Hancock; D-Berkeley) Increased Tax Rate — Threatens to significantly increase the corporate tax rate on publicly held corporations and financial institutions up to 15% according to the wages paid to employees in the United States, and threatens to increase that rate by 50% thereafter, if the corporation or institution reduces its workforce in the United States and simultaneously increases its contractors.

SCA 5 (Hancock; D-Berkeley) Lowers Vote Requirement for Tax Increases — Adds complexity and uncertainty to the current tax structure and pressure to increase taxes on commercial, industrial and residential property owners by giving local governments new authority to enact special taxes, including parcel taxes, by lowering the vote threshold from two-thirds to 55%.

Increased Burdensome Environmental Regulation

AB 356 (Williams; D-Santa Barbara) Limits In-State Energy Development — Jeopardizes high paying middle class jobs in resource extraction fields by severely restricting wastewater injections sites and requiring unnecessary monitoring of those sites.

AB 1490 (Rendon; D-Lakewood) Limits In-State Energy Development — Drives up fuel prices and energy prices by imposing a de facto moratorium on well stimulation activities by halting the activity after an  earthquake of a magnitude 2.0 or higher.

SB 32 (Pavley; D-Agoura Hills) Halts Economic Growth — Increases costs for California businesses, makes them less competitive and discourages economic growth by adopting further greenhouse gas emission reductions for 2030 and 2050 without regard to the impact on individuals, jobs and the economy.

Increased Health Care Costs

SB 546 (Leno; D-San Francisco) Health Care Rate Regulation — Threatens employers with higher premiums and interferes with their ability to negotiate with health plans by imposing unnecessary and burdensome new reporting requirements on health plans and insurers in the large group market, and giving the Department of Managed Health Care and the Department of Insurance authority to modify or deny all rate changes in the large group market.

Economic Development Barriers

AB 359 (Gonzalez; D-San Diego) Costly Employee Retention Mandate — Inappropriately alters the employment relationship and increases frivolous litigation by allowing a private right of action and by requiring any successor grocery employer to retain employees of the former grocery employer for 90 days and continue to offer continued employment unless the employees’ performance during the 90-day period was unsatisfactory.

SB 576 (Leno; D-San Francisco) Stifles Mobile Application Technology Development — Stifles innovation and growth in the mobile application economy and creates unnecessary and costly litigation by mandating unnecessary, redundant and impractical requirements that will leave many current and future mobile applications unusable, with no benefit to the consumer.

Increased Unnecessary Litigation Costs

AB 244 (Eggman; D-Stockton) Private Right of Action Exposure — Jeopardizes access to credit for home mortgages, increasing the challenge to attract business to California because of high housing prices, by extending the homeowner’s bill of rights to others, thereby opening the door to more private rights of action.

AB 465 (Hernández; D-West Covina) Increased Litigation — Significantly drives up litigation costs for all California employers as well as increases pressure on the already-overburdened judicial system by precluding mandatory employment arbitration agreements, which is likely pre-empted by the Federal Arbitration Act.

SB 203 (Monning; D-Carmel) Lawsuit Exposure — Exposes beverage manufacturers and food retailers to lawsuits, fines and penalties based on state-only labeling requirements for sugar-sweetened drinks.

 president and CEO of the California Chamber of Commerce

Originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

CA Jobs are Booming, But What Kind of Jobs?

First the good news on the job front: California is leading the nation in job creation. Job growth in the Golden State last year increased by 3.1% while job growth in the rest of the nation settled in at 2.3%. And with 67,300 new jobs created in January alone, the state’s unemployment rate dropped to 6.9% from 7.1%, the lowest in nearly seven years, although still higher than the national unemployment figure of 5.5%. Still, the January California job gains made up 28% of all jobs created in the entire nation.

Yet, wage growth is not keeping pace, especially in populous Los Angeles County. Low paying jobs make up a large share of the job increase in the county and elsewhere.

According to Jordan Levine of Beacon Economics in L.A. the cost of hiring middle class workers in California is expensive. The reasons Levine mentioned in a Long Beach Press Telegram report were regulations and environmental laws that have driven up the cost of doing business and the cost of housing. It becomes difficult for businesses to meet the higher wages needed to keep middle-wage workers.

“It really comes down to the cost of living,” Levine said. “If you look at who’s moving out, it’s people making $50,000 or less.”

So while the legislature looks for solutions to housing costs to help create affordable housing through tax credits and fees, legislators also should consider how past regulations and laws have driven up the cost of housing and look for ways to ease up on those rules.

Beyond that examination, the legislature should go further and see how regulation reform could add to job creation in the middle class.

As the California Business Roundtable noted not long ago, “By a large margin, California’s regulatory environment is the most costly, complex and uncertain in the nation. No other state comes close to California on these dimensions.”

Let’s hail the increase in jobs that is occurring now and celebrate California’s recovering economy. But, now is also the time to take steps to continue job growth and make moves that encourage businesses to generate more middle class jobs.

This piece originally ran on Fox and Hounds Daily

Understanding the Meaning about Green Jobs

Given the upcoming proposals on the next generation climate policies, it is critically important to start understanding exactly what the green economy means to California’s long term jobs future. According to a recent review from the Center for Jobs and the Economy, multiple studies indicate that 2% of all California jobs are classified as green jobs.  There is evidence that California has gained temporary jobs around construction and installation of solar facilities and consulting work for government and private employers, but it appears that the green sector has not yet developed substantial permanent, middle income jobs for a long term employment base.

We need to put the numbers into perspective and understand the unique role they will play and how we can develop state policies that recognize their importance while growing the other 98% of our current jobs in other sectors.

For example, the only hard green jobs data from the state was a California Employment Development Department (EDD) survey from May 2009 to January 2010 which found that “the results also showed no discernable difference in the likelihood that a green or non-green firm would experience a net job gain.” The state should have the latest and most transparent green jobs data to help the Governor and policymakers in their decision-making.

While some green industry sectors are growing, many studies rely on reclassification of traditional jobs such as those in garbage, public transit, utilities, and government regulatory positions as “green” in order to arrive at their numbers.  This issue is critically important because major environmental and energy policy decisions will be based on these classifications and incomplete numbers. The Center noted that some reports on green jobs build their numbers by including indirect jobs, including supporting services such as “consulting, finance, tax, and legal services.”

The analysis also found that nuclear, hydro, and natural gas power jobs are treated as green jobs, including in the most recent higher estimates, although those facilities are not designated as such under the AB 32 program.  If we expect to have an accurate accounting that will guide policy-making, then we need to start with a reasoned and practical definition of a green job to be used by government and private entities.

You can find the study here.
Rob Lapsley is President, California Business Roundtable