[benbayard]

Is your usual breakfast spot a location with more than 60 locations? The minimum wage increase here only applied to chains with more than 60 locations. A lot of what you're describing is nation-wide. Food is more expensive everywhere. Cost of living in California is up significantly. Rents for restaurants is significantly higher as well (at least anecdotally, my wife's family restaurant has to close because they doubled the rent after their lease was up, I have heard this is incredible common).

This study by UC Berkeley attributed a 3.7% increase in food price because of the minimum wage changes. It's quite likely that food overall getting more expensive is responsible for a lot of what you're seeing.

If we can't afford to pay people in California a wage where they can live here, then maybe the economy overall isn't sustainable? A $20 minimum wage is like $2800 take home per month and in many places that can barely cover rent.

[SideQuark]

Min wage forced on some places forces other companies to compete for workers, so your argument is missing important facts.

[benbayard]

You are correct that I was unable to summarize an incredibly complex tangled web of economics, sociology and politics in a few hundred words on a forum. I don't think any of us can do this. Of course it's an oversimplification. Is the comment I'm replying to also not doing this? Are you also not doing the same thing?

My only point is that this seems like an awful lot of confirmation bias. Something everyone suffers from.

[SideQuark]

Not all people suffer the same level of confirmation bias, especially across all topics. And, for most topics, broad consensus of experts is better and less biased than individuals.

[Hilift]

A better example would be Los Angeles and the new $30 per hour minimum wage for hotel and airport workers. Conceptually it makes sense. The crux of the issue and some opposition is there are more people now who use those jobs for primary income for a family, where in the past it may have been perceived as jobs for supplemental income and no health benefits.

[benbayard]

I'm glad those people are able to now support a family. At least we have that, if nothing else.

[mensetmanusman]

The property tax laws need to force people to maybe not sit in large empty houses.

[anonymousiam]

Why, if you have the money, should you be forced to have roommates or tenants? What sort of freedom is that?

[jaggederest]

If you have the money the taxes should be no problem, surely?

[kriops]

Taxes are only ever a problem if you have money … or something equivalent.

[alsetmusic]

The problem is a California tax law that lets home owners pay the tax rate from when they bought the home despite the value increasing. It disincentives selling. Which leads to retirees sitting on family homes rather than relocating and releasing them back into the market.

[mdavid626]

True, but if the other half of the country can't affor any house, then surely we should find some solution.

[lotsofpulp]

If you have the money, paying proportionate land value tax to pay for society's upkeep and protection of your land is not a problem.

If you don't have the money, then you are free to live on a smaller surface area.

[sethammons]

My property tax has gone up over 6x in 7 years.

How am I supposed to plan my retirement? Plan to leave my home of years, where I have built a life and have all my things? If you think that, you are a sick person and I have to imagine you are younger and only thinking "but I want that nice house, so f*k off old person, take some money and go die somewhere else."

[phil21]

Old people should not be prioritized over the young.

A 600% increase in property taxes over 7 years is an extreme outlier. Zero of my friends or family have ever once experienced such a thing happening.

I certainly am not a fan of how heavy my property taxes are in one of the heaviest taxed cities in the US - but I would absolutely vote down anything resembling something like Prop 13. It's an immoral bit of tax code that favors old people over the young and productive - like seemingly most of our current policy.

I should not be paying a different rate than the young couple moving in next door to me simply because I got here first. The services need to be paid all the same regardless of my age.

> How am I supposed to plan my retirement? Plan to leave my home of years, where I have built a life and have all my things?

Yes, obviously. I have this giant asset called property I can sell and downsize to something reasonable in retirement. Or in the worst case - move. I could also use the equity in my home to pay for living expenses if I must. This was considered normal and expected just a couple generations ago.

This whole "let the old eat their young" streak of society needs to die off sooner than later.

[sethammons]

Letting some old person stay in their lifelong home is not the old eating the young. Kicking that old person out of their home literally is the young killing off the old.

[lotsofpulp]

The price is the price. Maybe you shouldn’t have eaten avocado toast so much and saved more for retirement?

Renters have to move all the time, regardless of where they built a life and have all their things, many times because their income is being taken to subsidize people living on large lots (earned income tax is stupid, it’s working people paying for the rent seekers who get to enjoy living and profiting from larger spaces).

Another option is to have multiple kids, and bet that a few might support you in your old age.

Also, I would like to see which region nominal property taxes increased 6x in 7 years. I research real estate all around the US, and I have never seen anywhere close to that increase. You can link to a Zillow link of any random home in the broader region, as they all would have experienced the same rise.

Property tax rates are usually 0.5% to 2.5% of market value, and you would be in very rarified company if the market value of your house went up 6x from 2017 to 2024.