California political analysts say inflation and voter confusion contributed to the failure of propositions to raise the minimum wage and allow stronger rent control.

Proposition 33 would have allowed local governments to pass strict new rent-control ordinances.

Christian Grose, professor of political science and public policy at the University of Southern California's Dornsife College and Price School of Public Policy, said voters may have found the measure to be overly complex.

"We did some polling on this back in September, and we found a lot of people were undecided," Grose said. "I think it's a confusing initiative for a lot of voters, and so often when people aren't certain what the effects are going to be, they'll just vote no."

Opponents of Prop. 33 argued that more rent control would discourage construction of new rental units, thus thwarting attempts to increase the supply of housing.

Proposition 32 would have raised the minimum wage to $18 an hour for companies that have 26 or more employees, and to $17 for smaller companies.

Grose called the defeat surprising, as California recently raised the minimum wage -- but only for fast-food workers.

"With inflation, there's some concerns about raising minimum wage will then lead to increased costs. So people who traditionally would support minimum wage maybe are opposed," he said.

Opponents of Prop. 32 warned it would have hurt California businesses and led to an increase in the cost of goods and services.

Keely O'Brien, policy advocate with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, said Prop. 32 would have helped the working poor at a time when poverty is the highest it has been in years.

"In early 2023, 31% of California residents were either poor or near poor, and nearly 76% of poor Californians lived in families with at least one working adult. So these are not, these are families who are working. They're often working really hard, and they're still not. They still don't have the resources that they need," O'Brien said.

By Hevin Wilkey / Broadcast version by Farah Siddiqi reporting for the Kent State NewsLab-Ohio News Connection Collaboration.

Ohio students are urging their universities to increase campus wages. Earlier this year, Ohio raised the minimum wage from $10.10 to $10.45 an hour, and it will be raised to $10.70 on Jan. 1, 2025. Some students say they need more to better support themselves.

"It would relieve a lot of stress to not have to worry about what is going to happen if you buy one too many cups of coffee that week, or if you change your Spotify subscription, or you need a new backpack and you just don't have to worry about counting the pennies in your wallet to make sure that it's something you can afford," said Nica-Emmanuel Delgado, vice president of Kent State's chapter of the Ohio Student Association.

OSA is a political student organization that advocates for accessible and affordable higher education, along with other issues of interest to college students in the state.

Not only has Delgado worked multiple on-campus jobs, the senior anthropology major also works off campus. Despite all the jobs and splitting rent with their partner, Delgado said they sometimes struggle to afford everyday necessities like gas, rent and groceries.

Efforts to raise wages for student workers at some schools have been somewhat successful. For example, in winter 2022, students at Ohio State University protested on-campus wages, demanding $15 an hour. By the start of 2024, the university decided to raise its minimum wage to $13 an hour after researching market rates and setting a goal to retain student employees.

This summer Kent State's United Students Against Sweatshops succeeded in getting the university to raise wages for resident assistants from $500 to $1,730 per semester through campaigning and meeting with administrators.

Every year MIT produces a living wage calculator for the entire United States. For Ohio, one adult with no children should make at least $19.40 an hour to live, nearly $9 above the minimum wage.

OSA's Delgado said they aren't asking for something as high as the $19 an hour livable wage, but the goal is for students to feel less stressed.

As much as students fight for livable wages, sometimes it isn't in university budgets, said Sandy Baum, higher education economist and senior fellow at the Urban Institute.

"They have to figure out where the money is going to come from and they have to make choices about how to allocate their budgets," Baum said. "I think taking all of those things into consideration is really important in terms of figuring out what the solutions are to make students better off."

She also said that universities might have to choose between lower wages for more workers or higher wages for fewer workers, ultimately increasing each employee's workload.

In United Students Against Sweatshops Kent State chapter chair Madison McCartha's opinion, the overall workload is already too intense. She has talked with various professors and Faculty Senate about the correlation between student grades and the burden of working one or several jobs. The students who are most impacted by their finances also struggle with academics.

"Students who come from better-off backgrounds or have higher paying jobs sometimes are able to allow themselves a little bit more grace to work, because if they have to miss a shift or any of these different things, it's not the end of the world for them," McCartha said. "We see that that stress really reduces your academic performance, and again, as an institution of higher learning, we want to prioritize learning."

Despite potentially lower wages, there is still a major appeal for students to work on campus.

Many campuses offer flexibility for their students' jobs based around their schedule and time of year. Universities understand that students should only work a certain number of hours to make sure they can still focus on studying while also being able to give them breaks according to the calendar. Not working during breaks or holidays is another plus for many students. And students without their own transportation don't have to travel far to work.

When McCartha worked on her campus, she was making around 40 cents more than the state minimum wage at the time, which was $10.10, and eventually switched to another campus job that paid her around $11.

She said even with the aid of the higher wages, which she appreciated, her funds were still lacking.

"Myself and my colleagues were, and some of them still are, donating plasma to make their bills and pay for food," McCartha said. "It was still not quite enough for the things that I needed at times."


This collaboration is produced in association with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the George Gund Foundation.


get more stories like this via email

Montana's wildland firefighters face a drastic pay cut at the end of this week without congressional action.

Nationwide, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law made $600 million available to boost wages for more than 11,000 firefighters. The law gave Interior Department or Forest Service employees an annual raise of either $20,000 or a 50% base salary increase.

Wildland firefighters can make as little as $15 an hour doing one of the country's most dangerous jobs.

Jonathon Golden, legislative director for the advocacy group Grassroots Wildland Firefighters, described the pay raise as a game changer.

"That really sent a message and a signal to the workforce that they were acknowledged for their hard work, their dedication, their sacrifice," Golden explained. "That hard work also includes the off season when they are recovering."

Federal spending is set to expire at the end of this week. Congress could pass a continuing resolution to keep the government funded into the new year, which would cover the firefighter pay raise.

Golden's group said rather than needing biennial approval, Congress should make the federal wildland firefighting increases permanent. In addition to pay raises, more permanence would also allow crews to prepare and budget for future fire seasons, which Golden pointed out are becoming longer and more costly to fight.

"We need those preparedness budgets and the wages, salaries and expenses budgets as well to also increase," Golden urged. "Because that's the stuff that gets those firefighters out on the line, prepared and ready to go to fight the increasingly dangerous fires."

Golden and other advocates are pushing to bring federal wildland firefighter pay closer to the wages of state fire personnel, which in some cases are much higher.


get more stories like this via email

Kentucky's 33,000 state employees face challenges taking time off from work after giving birth to a child or adopting, and many are forced to use sick leave or take unpaid leave through the federal Family and Medical Leave Act because they don't have paid parental leave.

Dustin Pugel, policy director at the Kentucky Center for Economic Policy, said implementing a policy for state workers would put the Commonwealth more in line with other states, especially surrounding ones such as Ohio, already offering paid parental leave.

"Younger workers who are considering starting a family, who are also looking at other state sectors to decide where they want to work, it's really important that we attract them by offering this benefit."

Across Kentucky an increasing number of large private companies such as Norton Healthcare, along with public entities such as Louisville Metro Government and Fayette County Public Schools provide paid parental leave to employees.

Mothers who use paid parental leave have stronger bonds with their child and have better physical and mental health. Pugel added, dads also benefit from paid time off to help nurture new life.

"It's shown to increase brain activity in the part of the brain that's associated with empathy," Pugel outlined. "For kids whose parents use paid parental leave, there's a whole host of benefits as well, social, emotional, cognitive"

As of the beginning of 2024, 38 states had a paid parental leave policy for state government employees, with Kentucky remaining one of the 12 states without a policy.