One Step Too Far

San Francisco is by any measure one of America's most liberal metropolises. Nearby Berkeley helps round out the eccentricity. Tree-sitting, gay marriage, sex scandals, medical marijuana; it's life in and around the San Francisco Bay Area. It's also a very expensive metropolitan area to live in (trying to get facts was hazy. . . a few websites searched for "most expensive cities" popped up Beijing, China, aka you can live on $0.50 a day if you want, as 14th most expensive, proving that whoever did research for the webpage was either intoxicated, on drugs or robbed of all their cash on the way out of the bank. A city in Cameroon, Africa pops up as 26th most expensive). A search on US ZIP codes has Bay Area-based zip codes taking 12 of the top 30 spots in the country. Whatever the facts, San Francisco is already pretty expensive. San Francisco lawmakers are trying to make it more-so.

San Francisco passed a new law with the high-minded intention of helping underprivileged workers: the law requires one hour sick leave for all employees, full or part-time, for every 30 hours worked. This translates to one day sick for every thirty days worked, assuming an 8-hour day.

This law does four things, one of them good and three of them bad. Positively, it helps out hard-working, underprivileged workers who are taken advantage of by their employers. An employee who is sick should not be at work for productivity and personal health reasons, as well as for others' health; look no farther than those who work with food or have close interaction with others. The number of these employees is probably less than a number to get excited about, but a single story is enough to captivate voters.

Negatively, however
1.) it encourages under-the-table employment. Under-the-table employment isn't necessarily bad, but it's unseen by the government and employees in these professions are ironically more susceptible to employer abuse, not less. This falls particularly hard on illegal immigrants who have no choice but to work illegally. It does not take a leap of the imagination to guess that day-laborers aren't given sick-leave by those who employ them.

2.) it makes work slightly more expensive for businesses which hurts workers, and increasing expense is an upward trend in San Francisco. In 2003 San Francisco passed a minimum wage of $8.50. A wage floor is a foundation for working-class Americans, but an $8.50 wage floor is a tad over the top. Further, San Francisco sales tax is higher than anywhere else in the Bay Area, which may explain why more shoppers head to the East Bay and Palo Alto areas to take care of their shopping. Businesses, loathed by green activists, are the same entities who give life to employees. It is true that many business, unchecked, will likely exploit workers. But this attitude has driven activists to play the zero-sum game of hurting businesses to the point where businesses hurt workers, and these activists forget how far regulation and conditions have improved.

3.) San Francisco is simply passing the buck. This is the most unfortunate trend in San Francisco's misguided economic policies. Business go elsewhere, poorer residents are the biggest losers, and San Francisco's disparity problems, housing problems, and social problems get siphoned off to the suburbs, some in developments which core Bay Area locals also look down upon as the greed of corporate America. While this author has a strong distaste for unplanned urban development, city planners in big cities ignore ignore the fact that it's their own ill-sighted economic policies that are causing social, economic and environmental problems everywhere else. The Bay Area is fortunate because it is beautiful, the weather is nearly perfect and an unlimited number of activities and venues are all within easy reach. It can choose, so to speak, who lives there thanks to the extraordinary cost-of-living. But San Franciscans should not pat themselves on the back if San Francisco ever basks in the utopian sunlight it desires. It should look farther east to the suburbs of Sacramento, and south-east to Stockton, to see what it really has accomplished. Chances are it has simply tossed its problems into someone else's basket.

It is unclear if devout litmus-test liberals are so because they truly care about helping the less unfortunate, or because their parents gave them too much free time and free money as children. It's nearly as contradictory as the vegetarian who knows eating meat isn't entirely healthy, and explains this and the problems with corporate America while smoking a Camel. This is for certain: San Francisco will probably be a nice place to live for a long time. It's unclear whether or not it will be a great place to work.


This article is based on this article, and this article, both in the San Francisco Chronicle.