UC Berkeley Touts $15 Minimum Wage Law Then Fires Hundreds Of Workers After It Passes


Labor Markets: Hundreds of employees at the University of California at Berkeley are getting schooled in basic economics, as the $15 minimum wage just cost them their jobs. Too bad liberal elites “fighting for $15” don’t get it.

A week after California Gov. Jerry Brown signed the state’s $15 minimum wage boost into law, UC Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks sent a memo to employees announcing that 500 jobs were getting cut.

Coincidence? Not really.

Last year, University of California President Janet Napolitano announced plans to boost its minimum wage to $15 at the start of next school year, independent of the state law. Since UC Berkeley was already in financial trouble — it ran a $109 million deficit last year and is projecting a deficit of $150 million this year — number crunchers there had to have factored in the higher mandated wage when making their layoff decisions.

Weasel Zippers | Scouring the bowels of the internet | Weasel Zippers

And the shoe drops. Here we go with more consequences for raising the minimum wage.


I’m sure we’ll hear about extenuating circumstances that have nothing to do with the artificially increasing the price of labor. Whichever proponent will proceed to tell us how a 50-percent increase in minimum wage will have no impact on prices or employment.

Hmmm, how about a sample press release:

“These cuts were already planned and would have occurred regardless of changes in minimum wage. We do not expect minimum wage to have any actual impact on our budget. Frankly, we just really don’t have any idea why we have a deficit. Complete mystery, but it’s probably caused by the Koch Brothers just messing with us and spreading their exploitative capitalist propaganda. We probably really don’t have a deficit at all. It’s just a lie perpetrated by the 1 percent.”


The Left and its tools have moved from being ignorant about facts and economic realities, to actively denying facts and realities.

Surely people inside this…movement…know what it will do. Just as surely, they don’t care. It’s all about pushing the Leftist agenda. Get the Minimum Wage up. Morons who WORK for Minimum Wage will think it’s a great aid - and won’t be able to wait to vote for the D. And the union tools will all get COLA raises - and many will get pink slips, too.

THEN…inflation settles in. All up and down. Rising wages; rising demands…WHILE there is more money, created out of nothing, in the economy. Inflate the currency and then raise wages by legislative fiat…and prices rise all up and down. JUST…LIKE…CARTERNOMICS.

And then we have another “crisis” that the D who defeats Lord Trumpy and his big mouth…can go on to pretend to solve while making it worse. And, if it’s Bernie…oh, lord, will he make it worse.

We are in for it. At LEAST another four years. More likely a march towards complete disintegration of the Union.


Well yes, they were. Almost half of the jobs cut are already being paid above the new minimum wage(most of them are salaried).
Berkley’s biggest wage problem is on the high end, not the bottom.


Couldn’t resist could ya? Hehe. Yeah, I doubt it’s a direct result of the minimum wage law too. It’s way too soon. No way government central planners plan and think that far ahead. But I also know you minimum wage types have an excuse for everything and try to insist minimum wage really has no impact but goodness and happiness for the poor.


The** preponderance of evidence does point in that direction**. Though I’ve stated before that I don’t support a $15 minimum wage. I’d prefer an $11 minimum wage tied to inflation. $15 really is too high(though may be appropriate in NYC).


I personally do not care what minimum wages standards other states set. That is their business. If the Feds try it though that is another story. Minimum laws should be left to the states to decide. IF they want to kill off small businesses and eliminate entry level jobs that is their business.


There you go; Where is it called for that the federal sets minimum wages to begin with? this is basically telling business, large or small, The federal government is in charge of your business, not you…


… Then all I have to do is quote your own source:

“*How do we summarize this evidence? Many studies over the years find that higher minimum wages reduce employment of teens and low-skilled workers more generally. Recent exceptions that find no employment effects typically use a particular version of estimation methods with close geographic controls that may obscure job losses. Recent research using a wider variety of methods to address the problem of comparison states tends to confirm earlier findings of job loss. Coupled with critiques of the methods that generate little evidence of job loss, the overall body of recent evidence suggests that the most credible conclusion is a higher minimum wage results in some job loss for the least-skilled workers—with possibly larger adverse effects than earlier research suggested.*”

Empower the “skilled workers” (the middle class), by taking it out of the hide of the “low skilled workers” (the poor). That’s the “tradeoff”.

> Though I’ve stated before that I don’t support a $15 minimum wage. I’d prefer an $11 minimum wage tied to inflation. $15 really is too high(though may be appropriate in NYC).

If you’re willing to acknowledge discrete regional circumstances, then you’d be better off calling on said regions to decide on the minimum wage for themselves; not forcing one version of it upon everyone uniformly.

If your policy requires nuance, looking to the Federal Government is barking up the wrong tree.


There was another story of more businesses fleeing California because of the minimum wage hike

$15 Minimum Wage Sends California Businesses Fleeing | The Daily Caller


I have asked a question on several occurrences, and nobody has tried to respond.
"Where is it written, that the federal or even, for that matter, the state government, has the right to set wage level standards?


Nowhere is it written - that there should even be minimum wages.


It is not a power delegated to the Feds so for me it becomes a State issue. Though I believe that it is something that the people should vote on, not politicians.


It is within State power.

Is it a wise thing? Is it good economics?

A free market, allows the buyer and seller to come to an agreed-upon price. WITHOUT government stepping in and setting prices or forbidding sales.

That’s true of widgets and that’s true of labor to make widgets. Those who don’t like the pay for popping O-rings on bolts on widget chasses as they move down the assembly line…can get, BUY, training to do better-paying work.


I do not disagree. I was just saying that if a minimum wage is to be set that the states voters should be the ones to decide not politicians.


I think minimum wage is a violation of basic human rights.


No, because I’ve always said that raising the minimum wage causes tiny increases in unemployment. Which is more than worth it in wage raises for the vast majority who keep their jobs. Tell me I have a 1/200 chance of losing my job or an immediate raise of %25 and I wouldn’t hesitate to take that bet. And I’m pretty sure you would take it as well.

The federal minimum should be the minimum we accept regardless of nuance. States can then pass a higher minimum wage(which many should).


United States v. Darby (312 US 100). This case tested a federal minimum wage law which banned shipping goods in interstate commerce where they were produced by people paid less than minimum wage, and also banned the employment of those people at less than minimum wage in that context. The Supreme Court found this law constitutional, even though the manufacturing employees weren’t personally engaged in interstate commerce, because the employer was engaged in interstate commerce and regulating production was a permissible way to regulate that commerce.

Does that answer your question?


Question; should working people who can’t afford insurance, food or shelter or medical care be assisted by the state?


Who gave that ruling and does it coincide with The Constitution. It does NOT and now we are left with federal control over wages as precedent is set. I then question that ruling. The MARKET should be setting the wage structure. But another case of America slowly and inexorably going Socialist.
And csBrown, Are you kidding? you want the government to subsidize wages?