board wages

virtute-thecat  asked:

Hi, i live in a pretty rural area of Alberta so i hear a lot of people talk about how Notley is devastating the province, but none of them actually talk about specific things she's supposedly done. Like I've heard about a few things i could see conservatives not liking, but cant seem to find anything all that substantial. I'm just wondering if you know what specifically conservatives are so upset with (other than a woman NDP leader, tho i could definitely believe its literally just about that).

The Conservatives main issues with the NDP in Alberta seem to be:

1. That they’ve driven up the provincial debt.

This is true, but this is a case of blatant fear mongering by the right. The reason why the debt has gone up is because the NDP has refused to resort to austerity and cuts to social services to balance a budget.

Saskatchewan and Newfoundland/Labrador did resort to austerity to balance the budget, and it wasn’t pretty:

Saskatchewan’s Budget Takes From The Poor To Give To The Rich

Saskatchewan Cuts Funeral Funds For Poorest Citizens

Saskatchewan tells school boards to slash wages, benefits to meet budget cut

N.L. set to become first province in Canada to tax books

More than half of N.L. libraries closing in wake of budget cuts

Education ‘cut to the bone’: federation of school councils

Education cuts targeted in latest anti-budget rally

And for all the hot air over the deficit, its not as bad as Conservative make it out to be.

Alberta still has the lowest debt to GDP ratio in Canada.

And they still will balance the budget within a few years (if they remain in power until then):

Alberta Budget 2016: Books won’t balance until 2024 due to lowest oil revenues in over four decades

2. Another complaint from Conservatives is that its the NDP’s fault that Alberta has been going through a recession.

This is also false. The main cause of the recession in Alberta was due to low oil prices, and a failure on the Alberta PC’s to diversify the economy (The PC’s had 40 years to do this).

This is from 2014 (before the NDP was elected!):

Low oil prices punch $6-$7B hole in Alberta budget, Prentice says

No Albertan will be spared pain if oil prices remain low, says Premier Jim Prentice

3.And for all the complaints about the NDP’s policies, this doesn’t seem to be holding much water either. Alberta’s economy is actually recovering now:

Fewer Albertans drawing employment insurance as economy recovers, StatsCan says

Alberta economy poised for quick turnaround: report

Silence on the right and in the media about NDP role as Alberta adds an impressive 20,000 full-time jobs

Alberta’s two largest cities on the way to economic recovery

4.The other complaint I see is that the NDP hates the oil industry, which is laughable at best:

I may not be a big fan of the oil industry, and I disagree with the Alberta NDP in this area, but they’re pretty gung-ho about the oil industry.

-Currently there are 3 oil pipelines that have been approved that will ship Albertan oil. A large part of that likely came from Alberta’s lobbying of the federal government.

-Alberta’s climate change plan was developed in coordination with the oil industry.

-Alberta says the oil sands will grow:

Alberta climate plan allows for tar sands growth, export pipelines to proceed.

Like: ???

anonymous asked:

Leia's not obligated to pay Finn when he wasn't even an official member of the resistance, so don't criticize her for it. Finn is getting free room and board, that's plenty.

John’s comment about how “Finn’s not getting paid for this” was obviously a joke so I have no idea why you’re taking that line or my tag about it seriously.

BUT now that we’re here, you probably want to rethink saying it’s totes cool to pay a black character in “room and board” rather than actual wages for his labor.

mei-blossom1303  asked:

Board games with Genji and Mercy! Competitive side showing! Especially Monopoly.

Look if Overwatch is supposed to be taking place in an optimistic vision for the future, I feel like in an optimistic future people wouldn’t subject themselves to the living hell of Monopoly. I do like the idea of holographic board games and I can see Mercy and Genji playing games like Settlers of Catan and Risk on long Orca flights with other team members. Mercy and Symmetra are definitely the kind of board game players who wage psychological warfare on everyone else though.

Mercy: Hm. Interesting strategy.
Genji: Well as an heir to the Shimada clan I was educated extensively in–why are you smiling like that?
Mercy: *smirk*
Genji: what are you planning.
Mercy: *continued smirking*
Genji: You’re bluffing. Trying to get under my skin. It won’t work.
Mercy: *shrug* Whatever you say.
Genji: I mean it.
Mercy: mm-hm.
Mercy: *smirk*
Genji: …
Genji: WHAT ARE YOU PLANNING??

 @khamalas​ posted saying “does parse also watch those bts clips or?” and I think the clear answer is yes. Because what good is having essentially a mini documentary about your ex ? ex best-friend? ex maybe if you don’t watch it.

So he watches them alone in his empty apartment with his cat and expects to be mad about everything he couldn’t have had but thats not what happens. 

Instead:

  • He learns stuff about Jack through the videos that he didn’t know because they have both grown up and Kent hasn’t talked to him enough in recent years to know them. 
  • He learns that Jacks pre game rituals are no longer the same, that he smiles differently now and Kent almost doesn’t recognise him until he laughs and then its the exact same as the way he use to when they were together.
  • He watches the mini games they play and Jacks still a sore looser even after all these years.
  • They do a trivia quiz and Jack is only marginally better at pop culture than he was 6 years ago, but since when is Zimms so good at history. Kent swears Jack never paid more attention in history than he did in high school but maybe that was just another thing he missed.
  • They do a gift wrapping challenge for christmas and all Kent can think about is all the horribly wrapped gifts he got through juniors and how it turns out that Jack got lots of parts of his life together but not that part. 
  • He learns that Jack still tapes his stick the exact same way that they made up together in juniors, the same way Kent still does as well. 
  • Slowly but surely Kent fills in the gaps about what he didn’t know about Jack, that he was a history major, that he once flipped a table over a board game, and waged war on a rival sports teams house. That his best friend goes to law school, and that his proudest moment from collage was walking across the stage to receive his diploma.
  • Jacks exactly the same but entirely different and over time Kent comes to realise that this Jack isn’t the Jack he fell in love with when he was 16 and maybe its for the better but it still hurts to know that Jacks not his.

Eventually Kent realises that he’s not the boy Kent loved when he was young, but maybe Kent can let him go if he knows there’s no going back now

marxism-leninism-memeism  asked:

why dont u post about the wholesale shift to cacerality in american capitalism and its existence in relation to falling rates of profit and the neoliberal hollowing-out of the state

In late 1960s, an intensification of capitalist wars abroad, especially in Vietnam, the modicum of social programs in response to the civil rights movement, and Kennedy’s tax cuts contributed to push American growth through the roof. Utilization of industrial capacity reached 90% in some years, and the unemployment rate went under 4% for the first time in a decade. Any observer would assume that a high growth Capitalism would be a good thing, yet the rules of the game had changed. In fact, this brought on one of the biggest strike waves in history, reaching across the planet through 1967 and 1968, with American days lost to strikes tripling between the early and late 1960s. Corporations need a buffer of industrial capacity to ensure that production losses due to strikes can be made up elsewhere. They need a high unemployment rate so that any employee who asks for too much money can be easily fired and replaced. Instead, corporations were forced into an ameliorative stance with organized labour, giving out wage concessions and raising prices to keep profits level. This contributed to inflation and actually cut profits, with wages consuming the highest portion of GDP they ever have in American history. State planners were terrified. Their attempts to beat back Socialism abroad had led to its growth at home. Only a few visionaries at the Fed really knew what was going on. European attempts to fight back were certainly uninspired. The UK got union leadership on board for a wage freeze, but found it unsuccessful and instead was forced to devalue the pound to decrease imports. The French attempted a return to the gold standard to enforce austerity, but were forced to hand out massive wage increases in May 1968, which scuttled that plan. The West Germans attempted to use more social programs to buy out their unions, but that too failed, and an increase in the value of the Mark that would make German exports to America less appealing was forced.

The American response was much more interesting. Sure, it may have also been characterized by a periodic resort to the same programs, as when Johnson instituted capital controls in 1968 or Nixon declared a wage freeze in 1971, but America was the only nation with staff at the top levels of its treasury and national bank that could see the contours of the new world being created. They often made mistakes in their troubleshooting, but they were ultimately able to fine-tune together a new form of Capitalism with much trial and error. For some left-liberal commentators, the lower growth rates of Neoliberalism has been a problematic bug of the system that they wish to correct with a return to Keynesian prescriptions. For the Neoliberal state planners, it’s a feature that prevents an outbreak of sustained class warfare like that seen in the late 60s. Their challenge was to remove the planks of Keynesianism that encouraged class militancy even during recessions (the essence of so-called “stagflation” was that workers weren’t scared enough of being fired during an economic downturn to stop from striking) while keeping the system growing at all. First and foremost, this would restore psychological confidence in the system. Businesses had seen Keynesianism as a bulwark against Socialism in the 50s, but now saw it as an enemy. They registered their distaste for the security it gave to workers who opposed their ukases quite loudly. Quoting from Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell’s memo to the Chamber of Commerce:

“But what now concerns us is quite new in the history of America. We are not dealing with sporadic or isolated attacks from a relatively few extremists or even from the minority socialist cadre. Rather, the assault on the enterprise system is broadly based and consistently pursued. It is gaining momentum and converts….

One of the bewildering paradoxes of our time is the extent to which the enterprise system tolerates, if not participates in, its own destruction.

The campuses from which much of the criticism emanates are supported by (i) tax funds generated largely from American business, and (ii) contributions from capital funds controlled or generated by American business. The boards of trustees of our universities overwhelmingly are composed of men and women who are leaders in the system.”

Many businessmen complained that unemployment provisions allowed people to spend time looking for a job that met their wage expectations rather than simply grabbing what they could so that they didn’t starve. This was seen as not only an odious attack on the rights of business, but a betrayal from inside the system. The American state had to prove that they weren’t on the side of “socialists and hippies” by providing a return to “law and order”. The Nixon campaign was largely predicated on such a return, as was that of the first Neoconservative mayor of New York City, Ed Koch. In the post-election period, the Federal Reserve increased interest rates to 9% in 1970, provoking a full-blown recession to discipline workers. However, a banking crisis resulted, causing the Fed to turn on the liquidity spouts and shower businesses in money. While the businesses themselves were happy, ideologues like Milton Friedman gave shrill warnings about how “central bank independence” had been undermined in order to stop a full on depression ahead of an election (quite an irony considering Friedman’s main critique of the Fed in the Great Depression is that it wasn’t a good enough dispenser of liquidity). This was the beginning of a full blown obsession with “law and order”, to the point that any tinkering with the system to create a temporary period of lax authority that would later be reversed was still met with the harshest of condemnation. And why wouldn’t it be? They were finally cementing themselves in power, for instance in Chile and Argentina where they committed the most barbarous acts imaginable in the name of protecting their countries from supposed “barbarians at the gates”. The Neoliberals wanted everything to go their way now, even though giving up something like the Nixon wage and price controls too early would have doomed them.

Of course, these were the years that met the most resistance. Strikes in 1970 totalled one sixth of all American unionized workers. Importantly, these workers were including demands related to control of workplaces in their negotiations, something considered sacrosanct by businesses. Nationalizations in the third world went from 8 per country per year on average in the early 60s to 56 in the early 70s. The newly formed Trilateral Commission asked leading political scholar Samuel Huntington for a report, entitled The Crisis of Democracy. The “crisis”, of course, was that there was far too much participation in the political system by the people, potentially dooming the ability of the “enlightened” upper class to manage the nation’s affairs in peace. In France, the Socialist Party worked hand in hand with the Communist Party at getting back into power, proposing the radical “Programme Commun”, which stipulated that banks would be nationalized, working hours would be decreased, and France would withdraw from NATO. In Sweden, the Social Democrats proposed the Meidner Plan for the final realization of Socialism, where companies would be forced to give small amounts of shares to unions over time until the unions controlled the companies. In the UK, Tony Benn’s Alternative Economic Strategy was bandied about at press conferences by the Labour Party, although enthusiasm wasn’t shared at the top levels. At the UN, economist Raul Prebisch led non-aligned nations to call for a “New International Economic Order”, with a vote for a Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, explicitly allowing nationalization of property, taken in 1974, passing with 120 votes to 6. Within the US itself, Robert Roosa, formerly the treasury economist whose “Roosa Bonds” had salvaged American dollar dominance in the early 60s but now an investment banker, reluctantly joined hands with the President of the UAW, Leonard Woodcock, to call for an Office of National Economic Planning. These were dark days indeed, if significant sections of the American elite could call for state-directed central planning.

At the same time, economic conditions had only gotten worse. Investment failed to generate enough increased productivity to allow an escape from the crisis in the normal Capitalist method. This was in large part due to union attacks on corporate control of workplaces. New technologies couldn’t be used to reorganize workers for increased productivity if the workers were united in rejecting them. The American overture to China was made in this context. If there was any country that did have total control over its workers, it was the People’s Republic. Lets take a look at this cool chart that shows the deepening of the crisis as the decade wore on:

Now here was the Neoliberals time to shine. They would have to look like knights in shining armor, riding in on horseback and bringing order to chaos. By getting the consent of the American populace for their policies, they would gain the confidence of the business community to take over ever larger sections of the map. Their horse was Neoconservatism, the ideology of “liberals mugged by reality”, in other words, those American Democrats fed up that black people were protesting over economic conditions even though the Civil Rights Era was over. These intellectuals were largely centred in New York City, and it was New York City where Neoliberalism first took hold through the panic over a potential default by the city in 1975. Through the 1970s, New York City’s population declined. With economic stagnation came unemployment, drug use, suicide, crime, and urban decay. The city’s white population could afford to flee to racially pure suburbs, but its black population was cemented in place by racist city planning and racially discriminatory banks. All levels of media covered the issue as one of black dysfunction, from Neoconservative Daniel Moynihan’s report The Negro Family, which viewed black people paternally, to tabloid news propaganda, which viewed blackness as inherently tied to crime. Even media that catered to black people proclaimed that the number one threat to black livelihoods wasn’t racism, but drugs. More black members of Congress voted for the legislation that started the War on Drugs than against it. One other group that couldn’t flee was Wall Street, which put pressure on the city to “clean up its act” at the same time as it pressured the city over its financial obligations to bondholders. The problem was framed as one of “politically powerful labour unions” blackmailing the city to go easy on black criminals. The great irony of course was that every city union was in support of the Neoliberal coup and abrogation of the elected Mayor’s powers by an unelected council of bureaucrats. One racially tinged report states:

As primary author of the Kerner Commission report on the Watts Riots that had riled Los Angeles in 1965, Lindsay was a leading proponent of the claim that American racism blocked the conventional paths of upward mobility for African Americans, never mind compelling evidence of black economic progress in the 1960s. In Lindsay’s view, it was up to the government to create state-sponsored paths of social mobility for racial minorities. Thus, even at a time when the black male unemployment rate in New York was 4 percent and there were long columns of help-wanted ads for unskilled laborers in the Big Apple, Lindsay managed to double the welfare rolls to over one million. In doing so, he killed two birds with one stone, creating jobs for thousands of middle-class social workers. This would not have been so bad except that, in a condition unique to New York City, the state requires Gotham to foot one quarter of the bill for public income assistance and Medicaid. Lindsay would dig the hole even deeper after the Detroit and Newark race riots of 1967 and 1968. He became convinced that further social spending was the only sure way to avoid racial violence in New York. Maybe he was right, and maybe he wasn’t—at least New York was spared large-scale problems, although there were numerous small riots and a massive increase in violent crime that amounted to an ongoing rolling riot. But this relative stability had come at a steep price: Although its population was shrinking, and although spending on core services like police, fire, and sanitation declined as a percentage of overall expenditures, New York City’s budget grew by 125 percent during Lindsay’s tenure.

What is actually being expressed there is the inability of Capitalism to both maintain demands for rising living standards that might head off revolution and keep profitability from collapsing. So it was that New York ignored the tens of thousands of protesters who came out against Citibank in 1975 and handed control to Citibank and its comrades. In 1977, Ed Koch’s campaign of “law and order” and “fiscal restraint” showed how these policies could go hand in hand,and he became a leading light of the new economic order. However, the first examples of this are probably Nixon’s own 1972 campaign, where he maintained that the War on Drugs would be one of the few programs to survive budget cuts, and Nelson Rockefeller’s last years in office, where he became a prototypical Neoconservative, passing some of the harshest drug laws in the nation (Rockefeller would become Nixon’s Vice President).

Neoliberalism made many compacts in seeking consent among Americans. There was the compact to protect what was possible of the New Deal, but only amongst white Americans of that generation. The 1975 deal to keep New York’s bonds afloat included a union agreement to buy those bonds with their pension funds, so that they would see the same huge returns that banks would, at the cost of worsening the social services of New York overall and preventing their children, who can’t get hired as the city continually sheds staff to austerity, from having opportunities for a similarly cushy retirement. Banks were allowed to lend to poor, largely black but also white, Americans to keep them buying in exchange for securitizing mortgages for banks’ profits, a deal worked out in 1968 at semi-privatized but nominally state-controlled Fannie Mae. State investment in new computer technologies were handed over to the entrepreneurial classes, giving them new ways to profit and deepening the ability of American multinationals to exploit the third world. And, to answer your question, the state was given powerful new tools to surveil and control that meant it could absorb the excess unemployment it would create under Neoliberalism, in exchange for clearing out the neighbourhoods where both the white and black middle classes lived of “undesirables”. That’s why the big increase in incarceration comes not when Nixon declares a War on Drugs, which at first was largely for show, but when key Neoliberal Paul Volcker finally goes through with his interest rate shock in 1978, raising rates to 18% and putting 1 million out of work (including 22% of the construction industry and 24% of the automotive industry, both cores of lower class working life):

Of course, we shouldn’t just stick to the American milieu. The War on Drugs has been most pronounced internationally, especially in Latin America. America spent $7.3 billion in Colombia in the 2000s alone on the drug war. Most of this hasn’t gone to actually limiting production of drugs per se. Instead, drugs are brought under control of American allies, just as they were in Southeast Asia in the 50s and 60s. These drug lords, who had institutional links to the state authorities in each of their countries, put their money into American banks, essentially a way to capture and recycle some of the labour of American workers back into the Capitalist system. One UN estimate says that in 2008 $352 billion worth of drug money was sent through the American banking system. At the same time, drug wars are also effective in uprooting Latin American peasants and pushing them into cities. Colombia’s drug war operates under propaganda about peasant militias like FARC being drug profiteers, when the biggest drug lords in that country are in fact tied to right wing militias and the army itself. They bomb and invade peasant villages, creating refugees who travel to the cities and are forced to find work in American-owned factories. There, if these workers try to unionize, they’re assaulted by the very same militias armed under War on Drugs programs. This keeps their wages down and allows them to be exploited effectively under Neoliberalism. A similar process can be seen in Mexico, where the reigning Sinaloa Cartel is aided and abetted by the DEA in an effort to “stabilize” the country. Perhaps the most brazen was the Cocaine Coup of 1980 in Bolivia, where the CIA backed a group of drug lord and former Nazis under General Luis Garcia Meza in building a rather unstable state that topped about a year later. The dwindling of support for the War on Drugs, support for large prison populations and middle class black support for police may be signs of green shoots in the war on Neoliberalism, but I’m sure all of that will end up being monetized pretty heavily in new ways.

anonymous asked:

Is ASOIAF noble's use of a permanent garrison realistic? How common were permanent guards during times of peace in the Middle Ages? Where did they come from (levies, sons of soldiers...)? How many guards could the Earl of Salisbury afford, for example?

Sure, it’s realistic - depending on what period you’re talking about.

Generally speaking, the earlier you go, the more the army looks purely feudal - land is literally divvied up by how much it takes to support a heavily-armed and armored mounted soldier - whether we’re talking about the knight’s fee/knight-service as a unit of land in England, or the fief du haubert (i.e, a fief that can pay for a hauberk of chainmail) in France - and armies are made almost entirely out of men providing military service as their rent. 

For reasons that have been talked about in the fandom a lot, this was always a bit of a pain for rulers - armies take a long time to assemble, armies start to dissolve if the fighting lasts longer than the term of service laid down in their contracts, and so on. It was also not hugely popular from the lower end either - once they’ve got their nice fief, and especially once that fief becomes hereditary and much harder for kings to revoke or transfer, military service for the higher ups interferes with your nice local land-grabs and feuds, managing your estate, hawking and hunting, and the other pastimes of the aristocracy. 

So somewhere between the 12th and 13th centuries across a wide swathe of Medieval Europe, people came up with the scutage as an alternative. This is a cash tax paid in lieu of military service, and it was rather convenient all-around. It meant that the king had regular cash-in-hand (especially once they figured out you could impose a scutage during peace time as well as during a war) and could hire mercenaries to supplement their feudal levies, and it meant that landowners who didn’t want to fight could pay cash instead. And the popularity of this system meant that increasingly armies were more professional and less feudal in nature.

And this is how we get to the situation around the time of the Wars of the Roses where we have what historian Charles Plummer called bastard feudalism. In this period - the 14th through 16th centuries - kings and nobles realized that it was a lot easier to convert rents and taxes from service into cash, and then use that cash to hire people to fight for them, than the old feudal system. In this new system, people would join the affinity of a nobleman and, in addition to room and board and cash and an inside track to lands and appointments, would wear the livery of their patron. And nobles found out that they could afford to hire a lot more people this way than with the old land-sharing system. Hence the phenomenon of over-mighty vassals who could put a lot more men under arms than the monarch could deal with their more traditional armies - and why Edward IV and Henry VII both spent a good deal of their reigns trying to abolish the system. 

Now, who were these men who were fighting for a living? Well, one thing to understand is that, from the beginning of this period, there’s always been a class of people who took room and board and a cash wage to serve as permanent soldiers of a household  - the Anglo-Saxons and the Scandinavians had their housecarls; the Franks had their socii or scara, who served as the retainers and bodyguards of the various counts, dukes, kings, and emperors; and so on. Later on, the impact of primogeniture within the nobility meant that you had a significant population of men who had been trained as knights who weren’t going to get land - those men need work. During “bastard feudalism,” it gets even more complicated, because you had iterative affinities as the Earl of Salisbury’s affinity was part of the larger Neville affinity, and he would have had lesser lords in his affinity. 

As for examples - the Earl of Salisbury during the Wars of the Roses had a personal affinity of at least a thousand men, while the Earls of  Darby had about 2,000 men in their affinity, and so on. 

Though Dunkin’ Brand CEO Nigel Travis supports “reasonable increases” to the minimum wage, he said that $15 per hour for fast food workers would be “absolutely outrageous.”

Travis made these remarks after a New York wage board recommended fast food workers earn a minimum of $15 an hour, with the increase going into effect before 2019 if the state labor commissioner approves of the change. Travis told CNN that the jump will amount to a 71 percent hike from the current state minimum, which he says will impact small businesses and franchises as well as hinder the company’s ability to hire more people.

Read more. 

There are many ways to look at the minimum wage increase in Los Angeles from the current $9 an hour to $15 by 2020 — some hopeful, some cautionary, all good.

For starters, uncharted territory is rapidly being charted. Los Angeles is the fourth city, and by far the largest, to enact a $15 minimum in the past year. The others are Seattle, San Francisco and Emeryville, Calif. (near San Francisco). A $15 minimum has been proposed in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Kansas City, Mo.

Opponents of higher wages — generally, business groups and their political allies — have raised the same objections in Los Angeles that have been raised since the dawn of the federal minimum wage in 1938: that higher pay will lead to layoffs and business closings or business migration. But experience and research involving actual minimum wage increases indicate otherwise: The added cost of higher wages is offset by savings from lower labor turnover and higher labor productivity.

Higher wages can also be offset by modestly higher prices, which haven’t proved measurably disruptive, in part because minimum wage increases make somewhat higher prices manageable. Wages can also be raised by paying executives and shareholders less. Whatever changes employers may have to make in Los Angeles, the long phase-in of the planned increase gives them time to adjust.

…On the state level, 21 states that have not raised their minimums in recent years will be forced to face up to the fact that being a competitive place to do business means ensuring fair pay. Opponents of wage increases often raise the specter of scary “wage islands” caused by businesses decamping to lower-wage areas. The outcome is likely to be just the opposite. Businesses, especially in service industries, would prefer to be where customers have money, and that’s likely to be where wages are rising.

In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who has recently earned well-deserved praise for creating a wage board to help raise the pay of fast-food workers, needs to realize, and quickly, that cities in California have stolen his thunder. Establishing a wage board to look into fast-food pay is a big step in the right direction. But it is no substitute for establishing a separate higher minimum wage of $15 an hour for New York City, and no substitute for going to the mat for a state minimum wage that is higher than the proposal for $10.50 an hour currently on the table.

Workers’ share of the economic pie has been shrinking for decades as the gains from labor productivity have flowed increasingly to profits rather than pay. A result has been an economy that is less resilient and more unequal. Low-wage workers who have been demonstrating for higher pay are leading politicians where they need to go, and the real leaders among those politicians are following the workers.

—  Editorial in the New York Times“A $15 Minimum Wage Bombshell in Los Angeles”