Comments on: RIP Borderland Books

RIP Borderland Books

Chocolate Pickle — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:29:10 -0800

Borderlands Books, a Science Fiction specialty bookstore located in San Francisco's Mission District, will be closing in March. The reason? SF's recent law increasing the minimum wage to $15/hr makes the business nonviable.

By: oceanjesse

oceanjesse — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:34:40 -0800

You would think that the rent doubling would be the bigger issue here, no?

By: Zalzidrax

Zalzidrax — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:36:35 -0800

Well and I bet most of that "livable wage" is rent related, too.

By: Etrigan

Etrigan — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:38:25 -0800

The only way to accomplish the amount of savings needed would be to reduce our staff to: the current management (Alan Beatts and Jude Feldman), and one other part-time employee. Alan would need to take over most of Jude's administrative responsibilities and Jude would work the counter five to six days per week. Taking all those steps would allow management to increase their work hours by 50-75% while continuing to make roughly the same modest amount that they make now (by way of example, Alan's salary was $28,000 last year).

If you're a manager of something making $28K in San Francisco, your business was already nonviable. Amazon killed Borderlands, not the voters of San Francisco.

By: Justinian

Justinian — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:39:41 -0800

Yeah, all of their costs are factors. The minimum wage increase is the proximate one that broke the camel's back, not "the reason".

By: Jon Mitchell

Jon Mitchell — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:40:58 -0800

Couldn't they restructure as a non-profit and have some of the work done by volunteers? That's what my local video store did in Bellingham. But yes. I'm with the people who say that it's not the wage increase that made the business non-viable, but the cost-of-living. People deserve to be paid a living wage.

By: Justinian

Justinian — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:41:22 -0800

I think Etrigan sums it up very well; their business was already non-viable. This just makes it official. Which is very, very sad. Believe me, the loss of yet another SF specialty bookstore is not something I welcome. But it's Amazon plus San Francisco rent that is causing that non-viability, not wage costs.

By: Curious Artificer

Curious Artificer — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:47:44 -0800

Nice try at the free-market outrage, though.

By: Justinian

Justinian — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:49:44 -0800

But... they said they support the wage increase even though it means they are closing. That's the opposite of outrage.

By: angerbot

angerbot — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:50:51 -0800

Inrage?

By: benzenedream

benzenedream — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:51:32 -0800

Ah Borderlands, I have fond memories of being startled by Ripley the bald sphinx cat peering at me while I had my nose in a short story collection.

By: mudpuppie

mudpuppie — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:53:49 -0800

I don't get and don't like this. In 18 years of business, Borderlands has faced a number of challenges. The first and clearest was in 2000, when our landlord increased our rent by 100% and we had to move to our current location on Valencia Street. All of the subsequent ones have been less clear-cut but more difficult. The steady movement towards online shopping, mostly with Amazon, has taken a steady toll on bookstores throughout the world and Borderlands was no exception. After that and related to it, has been the shift towards ebooks and electronic reading devices. And finally the Great Recession of 2009 hit us very hard, especially since we had just opened a new aspect to the business in the form of our cafe. Blaming their closing on a living wage law (and the idea of $15/hour in SF being livable is laughable) is sort of like playing ring toss with spare tires and a camel's hump, then pointing fingers the fly that lands on the pile of tires when the camel finally collapses.

By: Rangi

Rangi — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:55:25 -0800

Many businesses can make adjustments to allow for increased wages. The cafe side of Borderlands, for example, should have no difficulty at all. Viability is simply a matter of increasing prices. And, since all the other cafes in the city will be under the same pressure, all the prices will float upwards. This makes me wonder if a "minimum living wage" is really the best way to make sure that nobody needs to work 25-hour days to make a living. I think the stereotypical case of a higher minimum wage being helpful is if the difference can be paid out of some CEO's salary who will do fine on $90 million instead of $100 million. But in this case, cafe owners don't have that kind of extra money, so they have to raise prices. This is equivalent to raising the sales tax and giving the proceeds to people making under $15 an hour. But looking at it from that angle, why use a sales tax? Those are regressive; the lower and middle classes are being charged extra at cafes to pay the workers' salaries. How about instead of a minimum wage, raise whichever taxes you think ought to be raised—maybe income tax, maybe capital gains, maybe a land value tax if you sympathize with the Georgians—and use that to supplement low incomes. That way individual wages are still determined by a free market, which avoids any theoretical concerns about price floors distorting the system, but people who choose to work low-paid jobs can still make a living.

By: four panels

four panels — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:55:59 -0800

I can feel the cognitive dissonance from here. And I say this as a progressive. Short anecdote: I was once at a conference in San Francisco, and for whatever reason on one of the floors there was a Formula 1 car. Some high school kid was taking care of the booth, handing out flyers, etc. An older gentleman stops by, white hair and sparkling eyes, and begins to absolutely fucking eviscerate this kid over fossil fuel/climate change. Just lays into the him, while he has to just stand there, brochures in hand. I love San Francisco, but being one of the wealthiest cities in the world affords boutique political positions that doesn't always translate to the working class.

By: teponaztli

teponaztli — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:57:47 -0800

It doesn't really sound like that guy typified boutique political positions, it just sounds like he was a jerk.

By: Rangi

Rangi — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:58:41 -0800

If Amazon were the cause of Borderlands having to close, I'm sure they would have said so. They said that "all of us at Borderlands support the concept of a living wage in principal and we believe that it's possible that the new law will be good for San Francisco," so they're not trying to discredit the idea of a living wage by blaming their failure on it. One can simultaneously support a living wage for its benefits to low-paid workers, while acknowledging that some jobs really will be eliminated rather than paid more.

By: nfalkner

nfalkner — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:59:27 -0800

I hate to see bookshops go but I hate to see people working for very low wages because it's continuing the attack on the under-privileged and the decreasing power of the middle class. Working for wages that are too low allows you to put money into everyone's pocket but yours. Genteel starvation surrounded by books is still starvation. On another note, I'll be interested to see what happens to business viability when someone actually attacks the very nasty privilege issues of the unpaid internship. If a business can only continue because you are not paying people a living wage then keeping it going depends upon finding people who are, basically, happy to scrape by on the fringes. Or, better still, you can pay nothing. People have to make do by breathing. Or maybe they have an alternative source of income or resilience. Like privileged people often do. That also excludes a lot of the 'kinds of people' someone might not want in your company but not want to put on the door as a clear statement. I note that these discussions are ongoing with some interesting legal cases.

By: michaelh

michaelh — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:02:27 -0800

Are we calling any business with thin margins 'already non-viable'? Who decides that? I'm not exposed to every industry, but there aren't many with fat enough margins or automation opportunities to handle a mandatory expense hike whatever the source. I'm sorry this bookstore is closing and that it's probably now much harder to open a new one.

By: the jam

the jam — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:03:27 -0800

I'm sure there are all kinds of cool businesses that could open up if we had no minimum wage at all. But it's good that we set it somewhere. And hopefully it's something close to what a person earning it would need to get by.

By: Curious Artificer

Curious Artificer — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:04:12 -0800

Justinian: my comment was directed to Chocolate Pickle, not to the bookstore.

By: Etrigan

Etrigan — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:05:51 -0800

Are we calling any business with thin margins 'already non-viable'? The General Manager made $28K in what they called their best year ever. That's not "thin margins," that's running a volunteer organization and calling it a business.

By: Rangi

Rangi — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:06:26 -0800

On another note, I'll be interested to see what happens to business viability when someone actually attacks the very nasty privilege issues of the unpaid internship. I also don't like the idea of unpaid internships, but in that case isn't it simpler to refuse to be an unpaid intern? The justification for legally requiring a living wage is that everyone needs to make money to buy food/shelter/etc, and low-wage jobs are the only ones available for some people. But as far as I know nobody is similarly coerced into being an unpaid intern. It's essentially volunteer work, which, like volunteering for a charity in a third-world country, looks good on college applications and résumés but is not something that everyone has to do.

By: four panels

four panels — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:08:29 -0800

Well, instead of going after the landed gentry, they went after the merchants. Either way, the serfs are fucked.

By: We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese

We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:09:03 -0800

It's essentially volunteer work, which, like volunteering for a charity in a third-world country, looks good on college applications and résumés but is not something that everyone has to do. This statement used to be true but really is no longer. Internships are becoming standard for many, many middle-class-wage-paying industries now. It's already been so for publishing for my entire adult life, which is an alarming number of years now...

By: feckless fecal fear mongering

feckless fecal fear mongering — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:09:41 -0800

It's essentially volunteer work, which, like volunteering for a charity in a third-world country, looks good on college applications and résumés but is not something that everyone has to do. In many industries it is. You get the A++++ place on your resume as an intern, you get doors opened that would otherwise be closed. And the only people who can take advantage of it, generally speaking, are the people with resources enough that they don't have to make money. People, in other words, with privilege that would already open doors.

By: Etrigan

Etrigan — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:09:46 -0800

I also don't like the idea of unpaid internships, but in that case isn't it simpler to refuse to be an unpaid intern?... It's essentially volunteer work, which, like volunteering for a charity in a third-world country, looks good on college applications and résumés but is not something that everyone has to do. Previous discussions of the realities of the "voluntary internship" on MeFi.

By: We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese

We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:10:21 -0800

(My point being that while nobody needs to work an internship in order to get ANY job at all, it's becoming essential if one wants to get the kind of job where minimum wage hikes aren't at issue.)

By: Karlos the Jackal

Karlos the Jackal — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:13:40 -0800

I've only been to SF a couple of times, but last time I was there we visited Borderlands and I petted the sphinx cat and bought a shirt. It seemed like a nice place. Couldn't they restructure as a non-profit and have some of the work done by volunteers? That's what my local video store did in Bellingham. Oh hey this is me. We're not quite non-profit yet; we're still waiting for some paperwork to get spat out by the gears of bureaucracy -- we should be hearing any time now. Turnaround's a month or more at the state level (at least here in Washington), and then it's something like 6-9 months waiting on the Feds for the 501(c)3 status. And it's not guaranteed. Borderlands might not feel like they have the luxury of time. Plus there's other stuff, which is probably derailing. Going non-profit isn't a solution that'd fit everyone.

By: teponaztli

teponaztli — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:18:16 -0800

I really, really love independent bookstores, and nothing breaks my heart more than one closes (as with one of my favorites here in LA last August). I just can't imagine how someone could live in SF for less than $15/hr (and even that seems low). What am I supposed to be mad about here, that people are supposed to get a living wage, or that: the store's rent skyrocketed, the market for independent bookstores has collapsed, and that cost of living has gotten so high that paying someone less than $15/hr is probably not very fair? I just can't see how you could lay this all on minimum wage without acknowledging all the other factors at play here.

By: feckless fecal fear mongering

feckless fecal fear mongering — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:21:39 -0800

Because a livable minimum wage is one of the things the right-wing noise machine is blaring loudly about right now, oh won't you think of the job creators, blah blah blah.

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:24:51 -0800

teponaztli: I just can't imagine how someone could live in SF for less than $15/hr (and even that seems low). If you want people to be able to afford a 1BM apartment in SF you'd best up that min. wage to $30.

By: four panels

four panels — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:25:55 -0800

"The horseshoe theory in political science asserts that rather than the far left and the far right being at opposite and opposing ends of a linear political continuum, they in fact closely resemble one another, much like the ends of a horseshoe." "Left and right together illustrated once more the "horseshoe" theory of modern politics: As the iron is bent backward, the two extremes almost touch."

By: nikoniko

nikoniko — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:28:46 -0800

There is no such thing as a "free market" - it is an illusion, a naive/knavish theory, a canard, a chocolate pickle(?).

By: feckless fecal fear mongering

feckless fecal fear mongering — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:33:29 -0800

"Left and right together illustrated once more the "horseshoe" theory of modern politics: As the iron is bent backward, the two extremes almost touch." Apart from that theory being more related to another part of a horse's anatomy, what on earth does it have to do with this?

By: aspo

aspo — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:36:44 -0800

Jesus christ, the owner is not braying about a higher minimum wage being a bad thing. They said very clearly that they support the living wage. The problem is books are a razor thin margin, and when wages go up 50% the option to raise your prices doesn't exist. Books have a set price, and Amazon has already made people used to paying LESS than that, not more. It's a hard time for bookstores all over right now.

By: feckless

feckless — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:37:33 -0800

I'm going to try to be kind to folks who don't know the store and the history, but it's hard because the store, it's owner and manager, the employees (current and past), the hairless cats, all mean a lot to me, and have since the week the store opened. In some sense my life in San Francisco up to this point is (in my head and heart) joined with Borderlands. Finding it the week I moved here, which was magically the week it opened in its old spot in Hayes Valley, was a sign to me that I made the right move. For folks who think Alan is laying it all at the feet of the minimum wage law, I suggest you take a trip through his newsletters, going back to 2003. In addition to lists of cool books and announcements of author readings and other events (which should give you an idea of what the store means to the SF community apart from "a place to buy books), you'll see as cogent a set of analyses on the state of the book industry as you'll get anywhere. Alan (and Jude and everyone else) know perfectly well all the factors (rise and fall of big box stores, Amazon, relationship of publishers and distributers, ebooks, and more) that have led to this point. And it's all very well for backseat business folks to then say he should have packed it in years ago. From a perfectly rational perspective, opening a physical bookstore was never rational in the first place. But I am incredibly grateful he did so, and has managed to keep it open this long. If he had packed it in, that last few years would have been less interesting and less good. The next few years, unless they manage to pull off something unlikely, will be less interesting and less good. Above, this question was asked: "What am I supposed to be mad about here, that people are supposed to get a living wage, or that: the store's rent skyrocketed, the market for independent bookstores has collapsed, and that cost of living has gotten so high that paying someone less than $15/hr is probably not very fair?" Being mad isn't the only option on hearing about something like this. Sometimes you can be sad, instead. A loss is a loss. On the narrow political point of minimum wage laws -- I swear, half of the people talking about this seem to never have run or worked at a small business than runs close to the margins. There are good businesses run by good people who will not be able to make it when you pass a major minimum wage law. I support those laws anyway, knowing that price and knowing that it won't only affect those faceless greedheads we imagine are the capitalist villains in these pieces. I support them because the aggregate effect will be good, not because there will be no ill effects. The owner and staff at Borderlands (according to them) also support the laws anyway. Public policy comes with tradeoffs, and those tradeoffs don't magically only affect the people we don't like.

By: gingerest

gingerest — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:42:05 -0800

So the idea of turning Borderlands into a nonprofit is that donations would supplement sales to overcome the the increasing costs of running an independent specialty bookstore in SF at the moment? I do not think this is as simple a solution as one might hope. And it depends on Alan and Jude wanting to run a nonprofit, or to put the store into someone else's hands, both of which are hard decisions that affect their personal and professional lives pretty deeply. The General Manager made $28K in what they called their best year ever. That's not "thin margins," that's running a volunteer organization and calling it a business. If you're going to be contemptuous of Borderlands' business model, you need to know that it's the whole brick-and-mortar independent bookselling industry's model now - I've known more than one bookstore owner who couldn't draw a salary at all.

By: chapps

chapps — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:45:40 -0800

I am sympathetic but I always wonder whether employees could buy the business and reform as a worker co-op. Or was this a business that provided no revenue for the owners at all? It worked Victoria for CHEK TV, but they were profitable within an unprofitable larger organisation. Also, what is the rationale that says coffee can raise prices but books cannot... Is it the comparison with Amazon prices? Because the long term should result in every one working at minimum wage now ultimately (over some time) having a bit more available cash for coffee and books. On preview it seems gingerest posits there may be no margin for the owners...so perhaps that answers my point.

By: ocschwar

ocschwar — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:47:44 -0800

So far as I can see, the only way for an independent book store to operate is to be a loss leader for a landlord who wants to draw traffic to neighboring businesses, which he himself owns, and to be owned and run by a comfortable retiree as a hobby. So, uh, yeah, talk to be in about 30 years. I think I might do that.

By: teponaztli

teponaztli — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:53:48 -0800

I know they support it. I was talking more about people, here on this site and elsewhere, who are laying it on minimum wage hikes. Besides that: On the narrow political point of minimum wage laws -- I swear, half of the people talking about this seem to never have run or worked at a small business than runs close to the margins. I have actually worked at two major independent video stores that had huge reputations in their cities, were enormously popular, and which had very thin profit margins. One of them paid minimum wage, and the other was volunteer-based. They were both great stores to be at, and to work for (in the sense of supporting them and being a part of the community), but the one that paid minimum wage was absolutely awful in terms of actually being able to support myself. I mean, it wasn't possible. I had to take on a second job just to be able to get by - and I was already working full-time. The volunteer place was great, but I worked there at a point in my life where I could afford to spend my afternoons hanging out, watching movies, and helping people find copies of Michael Winner movies. I'm not saying I want all these stores to go volunteer-only. But I do understand the reality of what it's like to be at one of these stores, and I don't like being asked to take next-to-no pay because a store is really awesome. You know what else is awesome? Being able to eat and pay rent. That's way cooler than any of the cool stores I've ever worked at.

By: 2N2222

2N2222 — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:57:20 -0800

This is why we can't have nice things? A twist on voting against your own best interest? I don't know why people have such an inability to admit that the minimum wage is a terrible idea that we can't bear to live without. It doesn't really sound like that guy typified boutique political positions, it just sounds like he was a jerk. A lot of people with the best of intentions sound like jerks sometimes. This is what happens sometimes with the best intentions. The straw broke the camel's back this time. A business that was viable, provided some money, was likely a labor of love, and was a nice thing to have in the neighborhood, no longer fits in the realm. So now, the money is gone, the labor of love is gone, and the neat place is gone. But maybe retail or restaurant with national recognition and backing will move in its place and provide new $15/hr minimum wage jobs. Or something even more upscale. Hope or sarcasm, doesn't really matter. Borderlands is the kind of place that gets in the way of gentrification.

By: feckless fecal fear mongering

feckless fecal fear mongering — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 18:00:04 -0800

I don't know why people have such an inability to admit that the minimum wage is a terrible idea that we can't bear to live without. Who, exactly, is a minimum wage a terrible idea for?

By: teponaztli

teponaztli — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 18:00:20 -0800

Borderlands is the kind of place that gets in the way of gentrification. Not knocking Borderlands at all, but I'd guess that a store like that opening in what was previously a predominantly working-class Latino neighborhood could also be considered gentrification.

By: bleep

bleep — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 18:02:20 -0800

I think the law in theory is good but I wish it came with some provision to avoid this. Like it only applies at businesses where the owner/ceo makes x*current minimum. And what will happen to the ones losing their jobs? I would be scared in that situation. I hope they're able to find new ones, and that the raise makes their lives better. Also did anyone else watch You've Got Mail when it was on one of the movie channels recently? That is a movie itching for a(nother) remake.

By: MisantropicPainforest

MisantropicPainforest — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 18:05:09 -0800

I don't know why people have such an inability to admit that the minimum wage is a terrible idea that we can't bear to live without. we are all dumb. you are smart. tell us why pls.

By: bleep

bleep — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 18:05:24 -0800

Who, exactly, is a minimum wage a terrible idea for? I'm in favor of minimum wage, but if businesses take it as an excuse to raise prices then minimum wage still doesn't let you live.

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 18:14:20 -0800

As someone who only moved to SF about a year ago, I'll say that having a store front on Valencia is wildly expensive if you moved there within this millenium. Their neighboring stores sell things like night tables for $2800. Sure you can get great burritos there for cheap, but those places have been paying rent at those locations since the 70s. I would imagine that paying their staff is a considerable load. But if they can't afford to pay even one person full-time at minimum wage, there ARE other neighborhoods they could have moved the store to, even back in 2000. The store that was recently crowned "Best Book Store in America" (though I forget precisely which organization did the crowning), Green Apple Books, is also in SF, but way up in Richmond away from the BART and the touristy areas. An ex employee of theirs tells me they, too, are faced with difficulties and they're not even paying Mission District rents. There are more bookstores in the bay area than I remember seeing in NYC when I lived there. (this is anecdotal, of course. if someone has a contrary statistic on this, please let me know.) I see bookstores all over the place, here. I love that, but I also know that it can't last much longer when so many people (myself included) are buying ebooks. Physical books are great, but they're becoming a niche if they aren't one already. It seems like it's time to start building businesses that treat them as such.

By: MisantropicPainforest

MisantropicPainforest — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 18:23:37 -0800

I'm in favor of minimum wage, but if businesses take it as an excuse to raise prices then minimum wage still doesn't let you live. Huh? What business is looking for an excuse to raise prices? If they could raise prices and make more money, they would have.

By: Etrigan

Etrigan — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 18:37:41 -0800

I don't know why people have such an inability to admit that the minimum wage is a terrible idea that we can't bear to live without. Sure, it's a terrible idea, because it absolutely does drive some businesses out of business. So do health standards. And workplace safety standards. And taxes, and licensing, and legal fees, and dozens, possibly hundreds of other such things. That doesn't make any of those things terrible, and it doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. If a business can't survive because of minimum wage standards, then it won't. Other businesses will. That's been proven, over and over again, by rigorous empirical studies.

By: jacquilynne

jacquilynne — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 18:38:08 -0800

Like it only applies at businesses where the owner/ceo makes x*current minimum. CEOs would just restructure their compensation plans to be $1 a year plus equity and then no one would have to pay anyone at all.

By: bleep

bleep — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 18:40:10 -0800

Well, there's got to be some way to catch them.

By: bleep

bleep — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 18:42:46 -0800

And by that I mean we literally need to think of some way to force businesses to pay people enough money to live on in a way that doesn't punish innocent parties like this bookstore. Or think of a completely different system than the one we have now.

By: sciatrix

sciatrix — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 18:55:43 -0800

I see bookstores all over the place, here. I love that, but I also know that it can't last much longer when so many people (myself included) are buying ebooks. Note there is a way to support (some) local bookstores while still buying ebooks through Kobo. It's kind of like plugging a deteriorating dam with a cork, but it's better than nothing. (And it's been a huge incentive to me to buy more and more ebooks through Kobo and made them a pretty likely candidate for my next ereader, so there's that...)

By: Potomac Avenue

Potomac Avenue — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 18:56:32 -0800

This is capitalism. Sometimes businesses close. They don't stay open because people love them. They stay open because people spend money there. I've heard the story over and over where a business goes broke and has a clearance sale and some shmuck cries as they buy a bunch of discounted product "I can't believe you're closing, I love this place!" This happens. Businesses close. It is very sad, I agree, which is why I shop at locally owned stores as much as possible. Here's a thought though maybe the extra money that Chipotle or the pharmacy that replaces them pays its workers will also go back into the community. When the assistant manager there goes to a different bookstore and buys a bunch of first editions of the Illiad that store profits from the mandated rise in wages accross the board. It's not a great system, but it's what we got right now.

By: No-sword

No-sword — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 19:05:03 -0800

Inrage? Mais non!

By: jacquilynne

jacquilynne — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 19:10:05 -0800

And by that I mean we literally need to think of some way to force businesses to pay people enough money to live on in a way that doesn't punish innocent parties like this bookstore. I don't think a workable living wage law can be created based on the idea that it's a punishment for big businesses or medium businesses or profitable businesses or rich CEOs. It isn't. Living wages are simply a necessity for a functioning society. This bookstore may be rendered more likeable by the fact that the owners also paid themselves shitty wages, but empathy from your manager doesn't pay your rent.

By: rtha

rtha — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 19:16:55 -0800

A few blocks away, a new condo development is renting 1 bedroom place for ~ $4K/mo. And nearby, a building - right next to the new condo building - that housed local businesses on the ground floor and dozens of people in apartments on the 3rd floor, most of them rent-controlled, burned. Technically, the residents have the right to return once the place has been rehabbed. In this actual universe, that's probably not going to happen. If you don't or can't pay a living wage to your employees, you don't or shouldn't have a viable business. /former bookstore worker

By: maxwelton

maxwelton — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 19:35:35 -0800

And by that I mean we literally need to think of some way to force businesses to pay people enough money to live on in a way that doesn't punish innocent parties like this bookstore. Just to be clear: We really don't need "jobs" as such in our society. If we spread the wealth around a bit, everyone could easily have free healthcare, housing and a guaranteed basic income. Those who want more could do what they can get paid for to do so, or start their own gig, and those satisfied with the basic income could then do what they want, which could be sitting around or making art or even volunteering at a bookstore. But in our current miasma, understand it is stolen labor and missed opportunities taken--with best of intentions!--from those working at our laughable "minimum wage" that allow us to lament the closing of quirky bookstores and the like. For every semi-content book nerd working at minimum wage, there are dozens of people trying to grind out a living at hugely profitable businesses like Walmart. We must all fight together or give up on it entirely. If you have a "business" which runs in the red, it's not a business, no matter how much you want it to be one. It's not to say we shouldn't value some enterprises more than we do, but we cannot put the cost of that on the people working there.

By: batfish

batfish — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 19:49:47 -0800

Just to be clear: We really don't need "jobs" as such in our society. If we spread the wealth around a bit, everyone could easily have free healthcare, housing and a guaranteed basic income. Those who want more could do what they can get paid for to do so, or start their own gig, and those satisfied with the basic income could then do what they want, which could be sitting around or making art or even volunteering at a bookstore. This a million. The case for the effectiveness of the minimum wage is inconclusive anyway. At best it's a temporary mascot for thinking humanely about economically struggling people.

By: turbid dahlia

turbid dahlia — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 20:31:08 -0800

But where will San Fransicoans go to try-before-they-buy their online Amazon science fiction book purchases now?

By: turbid dahlia

turbid dahlia — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 20:32:13 -0800

Anyway, this is exactly what happens when you have a city full of people with weird hair.

By: Static Vagabond

Static Vagabond — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 20:46:31 -0800

bleep: "I mean we literally need to think of some way to force businesses to pay people enough money to live on in a way that doesn't punish innocent parties like this bookstore" We do, it's called the minimum wage. I guess I'm confused why you frame the bookstore as innocent? Why doesn't a worker in their bookstore deserve to get the minimum wage?

By: 256

256 — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 20:59:54 -0800

I am the editor of a professionally-accredited science fiction magazine. I volunteer my time to this position because the magazine can't afford to pay me. I talk at conventions and conferences about the importance of maintaining a vibrant science fiction culture through magazines, bookstores, and other venues. But if the cost of a minimum wage increase is the closing of a great SF bookstore... I say, so be it.

By: xigxag

xigxag — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 21:21:37 -0800

San Francisco could make it happen that it is able to retain its funky low-margin businesses. For example renting out some some city-owned spaces for $1/mo. to artistic enterprises like bookstores and galleries. Or subsidizing their existing rents. Or exempting them from property taxes. Not that it should even matter but arguably this kind of investment could pay for itself in increased tourism and in maintaining a vibrant and diverse retail environment leading to overall higher tax collection. That is, by no means is this a problem without a solution. It's just a problem without a suitably free market solution, so...oh well, nothing to be done, remember the buggy whip, etc. The tyranny of the free market over any other considerations, this is how The Learning Channel turned into the "Sex Sent Me to the ER" channel.

By: wintersweet

wintersweet — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 21:23:01 -0800

This isn't a reply to anybody in particular, and it's not part of the living/minimum wage argument. I just want to remark on the unfortunate significance of Borderlands' closing. It has an effect on more than just being able to buy or browse books in person. Borderlands was renowned for the services it provided to authors, especially up-and-coming ones for whom the launch parties, signings/readings, and handselling that they provided are irreplaceable. (I dreamed of being one of those authors myself someday.) Amazon can't do these things, so authors and readers both lose (and publishing will continue to drift more toward repetitive blockbusters by the same old big names). I'm not really sure whether Dark Carnival in Berkeley is still open; their online presence hasn't been updated in months, and I don't live close enough to just drive by. But Borderlands' closure will mean that there's either only one sff bookstore left between LA and Portland, or that there are none. That's a huge blow to the reading and writing community. Some East Bay game stores are thriving, so I'm kind of hoping a couple of them will consider adding on fiction and holding author events (they have event space already). Lower rent etc. could mean more wiggle room...maybe.

By: corb

corb — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 21:23:25 -0800

The General Manager made $28K in what they called their best year ever. That's not "thin margins," that's running a volunteer organization and calling it a business. Actually that is a standard nonprofit salary in many areas of the country - even for a relatively stable nonprofit. Many, many people prefer to do what they love at low wages rather than do something they don't love at high wages. To suggest otherwise shows a lack of understanding of the mindset.

By: rtha

rtha — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 21:50:25 -0800

That misses the point. Borderlands is not a nonprofit. It is not run by volunteers out of the goodness of their hearts. Many people would like to do what they love and get paid a living wage for it, and I don't think that's an outrageous thing to ask in one of the wealthiest nations in history. We don't think it's all that remarkable that a CEO wants to get paid a bunch of money to do their job, which they probably like doing. We ought to point and laugh at the corporate bullshit that insists that such positions must be compensated at such high levels in order to attract and retain the best and brightest, because try saying that and "teacher salary" or "social worker" in the same sentence, and people will come out of the woodwork yank those uppity do-gooders back down the ladder. There's this empty street-level office space near where we are, been empty for months. For a long time, there was an artists collective there - they hosted shows and studio space and talks and things. Then rents started skyrocketing and their landlord got $$ in his eyes, so he kicked them out and tripled the rent ($15K/mo a I heard) and got a startup in there that blew through their funding in about a second and left the landlord with unpaid rent and an empty and unrented space. I glare and laugh every time I walk by. Stupid asshole.

By: Mitrovarr

Mitrovarr — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 21:51:19 -0800

gingerest: If you're going to be contemptuous of Borderlands' business model, you need to know that it's the whole brick-and-mortar independent bookselling industry's model now - I've known more than one bookstore owner who couldn't draw a salary at all. Maybe you should re-evaluate whether a business in such a position should keep open at all? A bookstore isn't a charity. They're not something people should sacrifice toward for the greater benefit of mankind. It's a business selling entertainment products. Nobody should make personal sacrifices to keep one aloft if it can't make money. It's not like working at a homeless shelter or something.

By: sebastienbailard

sebastienbailard — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 22:07:55 -0800

Actually that is a standard nonprofit salary in many areas of the country - even for a relatively stable nonprofit. Here's a brief discussion of rental prices in San Francisco.

By: ActingTheGoat

ActingTheGoat — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 23:16:17 -0800

Also did anyone else watch You've Got Mail when it was on one of the movie channels recently? As much as I loved me some Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan in Joe Versus the Volcano, that movie irritated the hell out of me. Meg Ryan owns a small, local, independent bookstore that is forced to go out of business because of the new mega-bookstore and then (because of product placement) she spends the whole movie drinking coffee at Starbucks instead of at a small, local, independent coffee shop.

By: dvrmmr

dvrmmr — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 00:20:08 -0800

The blog post by the bookstore owners clearly shows that they knew they were facing closure months ago. They weren't under any illusion that they were making millions or on the verge of some sort of breakout year. They knew they were right on the edge and making next to nothing, which is presumably why they brought in the cafe as a new income stream. The condescension and outright dismissal towards their business is bizarre.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 01:11:13 -0800

"But looking at it from that angle, why use a sales tax? Those are regressive; the lower and middle classes are being charged extra at cafes to pay the workers' salaries." For people passing taxes, you're describing features.

By: GameDesignerBen

GameDesignerBen — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 05:48:17 -0800

Borderlands was my very favorite book store, and I'll be visiting SF in March. I hope I get there before they're gone. .

By: jenfullmoon

jenfullmoon — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 06:14:12 -0800

Seanan McGuire must be devastated. She actually wrote the store into the plot of one of her books. I only got to go in there once briefly (sadly, the friend I was with is...not much of a reader and she didn't want to stay long). It looked cool. I'm sad to hear this is happening, but then again, it's San Francisco and this sort of thing being hard going doesn't surprise me.

By: Octaviuz

Octaviuz — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 06:21:57 -0800

maxwelton already made this point but I want to reiterate it. The solution to this problem is a negative income tax. We have the technology, we can build it. What we lack is the political will. Thankfully we have minimum wages now as a poor stopgap but let's be clear that there are other than libertarian reasons to dislike them. The question is what would replace them (and it need not be a return to debtors prison).

By: jabah

jabah — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 06:33:41 -0800

Also did anyone else watch You've Got Mail when it was on one of the movie channels recently? Saw this movie recently and, as a small business owner, it really irritated me in a way that it didn't when it originally came out. Because in the real world, the mega-bookstore that replaced the charming Shop Around the Corner would probably now also be out of business.

By: MisantropicPainforest

MisantropicPainforest — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 07:18:06 -0800

Raising the minimum wage is one of the easiest and simplest ways with very little bureaucracy to get more money into the hands of low income people. It has very little negative effect on levels of employment. Please let's not throw the baby out with the bath water and push for pie in the sky negative income tax ideas when raising the minimum wage is a politically realistic thing simply because your favorite bookstore closed down.

By: doctornemo

doctornemo — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 10:39:13 -0800

I had heard of Borderlands for years, but was only able to visit once. The staff were sweet, knowledgeable, and very helpful. The collection was awesome. Years before that I worked in a used bookshop in the midwest. It was very tough going, even in a college town.

By: Pronoiac

Pronoiac — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 14:04:56 -0800

Aw, I like them for bringing people like Charlie Stross and John Scalzi to readings.

By: workerant

workerant — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 15:35:46 -0800

If you want people to be able to afford a 1BM apartment in SF you'd best up that min. wage to $30. posted by brundlefly I lived in a 1BM apartment once. It was a real shithole. Tip your waiter, and try the veal!

By: andrewpcone

andrewpcone — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 15:39:43 -0800

Misanthropic: You claim that raising the minimum wage has very little effect on levels of employment. There are a few problems with that claim. Firstly, these effects are very hard to study, and actually most studies have concluded inconclusively. The absence of evidence is, especially in this case, not the evidence of absence. The reality is that we just do not know with much certainty what the effect of wage increases like SF's will be. Nonetheless, you are correct that there has been no smoking gun in terms of job losses attributable to previous minimum wage increases in the US. But no one has tried to raise the minimum wage as acutely as is being done in SF. So yeah, maybe SF could raise the minimum wage from $10.74 to $12 with no ill effect, but that doesn't go on forever. If you support minimum wage increases, you should ask yourself exactly *how much* the minimum wage should be increased, why you think it should not be raised any higher, and what the negative effects would be if we made it too high. If $15, why not $20, or $30? At what point does it become a bad idea, and if we set a minimum wage too high, how would we know? Note that expert opinion is far from uniform on this subject: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/what-economists-think-about-raising-the-minimum-wage/ Most credible reports agree that minimum wage would help *many* low wage workers some, but hurt a good number very badly: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995 That CBO report is often misquoted as saying that the proposed $10.10 minimum wage hike would "lift 900,000 of workers out of poverty," which is a pretty flattering way of reporting the actual conclusion, namely that of the 45 million Americans below the poverty line, 900,000 would see about a 3% increase, causing them to go from slightly below the poverty level to being slightly above it. What the left-leaning media fails to note, or tries to brush off, is that the same report also concludes that about 500,000 jobs would be lost. Now let's think about who is likely to be in the 900,000 who benefit, and who is likely to be in the 500,000 who would lose their jobs. Not all minimum or near-minimum wage workers are equally skilled or equally desirable to employers. If you have a criminal record, if you don't speak English well, if you didn't get a good education, if you have a sketchy work history, if you have scheduling constraints due to family obligations, if you have a disability that prevents you from doing certain kinds of work—basically, if you are on the less privileged end of low wage workers—you are going to have a particularly hard time adapting to a more competitive labor market. Those who are most privileged—ie, those who are least likely to be relying on those jobs—will be precisely the ones most able to keep them. But reducing demand for labor is only half the story. There is also increased supply. Think about what privileged people do when they lose their high paying jobs. Here is one thing they don't do: immediately start working low wage jobs. Minimum wage jobs currently pay so little that if you have any chance of getting a higher paying job, $7.50/hour (the current federal minimum) isn't worth your time. $10.10 might be, and $15 could easily be. At $15/hour, you'll find a lot of people seeking jobs they didn't want before: students, people who already work part time and want more, retired people, parents who previously stayed, at home, etc. So people who currently *need* those low wage jobs would find themselves competing with an even larger pool of willing workers, many of whom, due to their comparative socioeconomic privilege, are more desirable employees. Here's another misconception: that increasing the minimum wage would redistribute income from the rich to the poor. This is 100% speculation; there is no evidence to suggest this is true. Who pays for minimum wage is those businesses who employ minimum wage workers, but can not pass higher labor costs on to customers. This includes, for example, bookstores, coffeeshops, cheap restaurants, etc. And probably not big corporate fast food, which can afford to raise its prices some, and has beaucoup cash to invest in automation, so their labor costs probably won't go up much anyway. It's low-cost independent businesses who don't operate at an automation-friendly scale who will be squeezed the hardest. Those businesses are typically owned by low-to-middle income people, not top 1%ers. If minimum wage is raised, we can expect many independent businesses to fold like Borderlands, the least privileged low wage workers to become chronically unemployed, the more privileged ones to make more money. We can probably also expect a more rapid push toward automation than we are already getting. If that sounds like a good idea, you should support raising minimum wage to $10.10 or even $15. If it sounds like a bad idea, you should oppose the same.

By: feckless fecal fear mongering

feckless fecal fear mongering — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 16:02:16 -0800

You claim that raising the minimum wage has very little effect on levels of employment. There are a few problems with that claim. Firstly, these effects are very hard to study, and actually most studies have concluded inconclusively. Sure, fair enough. There is a significant bottom line, however: people making minimum wage can't afford rent and/or groceries and/or bills and/or transportation. The first prong of attack needs to very simply be putting more money in more pockets.

By: andrewpcone

andrewpcone — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 16:19:52 -0800

Yes, but the very next prong has to be that the labor market isn't doing that, and it is not clear that anything resembling wage floors would change that. There are many ways to get money into the hands of poor people. Like cutting regressive taxes, cutting FICA deductions on low wage workers, increased wage subsidies like the Earned Income Tax Credit, and, relaxed eligibility guidelines for benefits, increased size of benefits, larger Child Care Tax Credit, tax incentives to hire more workers, and, perish the though, just giving poor people money. Some of those are more politically feasible than others. All of them are worth lobbying for. All of them, would have a far more conclusive benefit to poor people than an increased minimum wage. Unfortunately, all of them more obviously cost money, unlike the minimum wage, which is seductive in part because it is not something the government must directly finance.

By: feckless fecal fear mongering

feckless fecal fear mongering — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 16:33:18 -0800

and it is not clear that anything resembling wage floors would change that. it is absolutely clear, however, that wage floors prevent employers from paying even less, which is obviously a societal good.

By: lumpenprole

lumpenprole — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 16:52:01 -0800

So, the minimum wage law that passed in Seattle was a bit scary for us, because if it was enacted here the way it was in some other places (i.e. wages jump in a day), it would have closed my wife's small business. Thankfully, the way the law was rolled out here has a stepped process where smaller companies have more time to implement it. I am in favor of raising minimum wage, but the problem this is meant to address is because the repubs have successfully stopped us from raising the federal minimum enough that getting it to a fair level now requires a huge jump. That huge jump is going to hurt a lot of businesses. The other canard is of course this idea that increased buying power will make up for it. That's patently ridiculous. Big box stores who can absorb the increase in the first place are the places that can discount their goods enough to be attractive to people making minimum wage. There might be some general rising tide lifts all boats effect farther down the line, but that's not going to make payroll next month for a 10 person company. Having worked more than one minimum wage job in my life, I have the deepest sympathy for people who are stuck on the poverty treadmill, and like I said, I'm in favor of this. I just think there would have been a way to avoid this if SF hadn't treated all business' like interchangeable cogs.

By: andrewpcone

andrewpcone — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 16:54:29 -0800

No, that's not remotely clear. It would prevent each employer from paying less for each individual hour worked. It would not prevent there from being fewer employers (ie, businesses like Borderlands closing), or prevent any employer from reducing the number of employees they pay, or prevent any employer from reducing the number of hours any given employee works. Nor would it prevent wages from falling for the 95ish% workers whose current hourly wage is more than the proposed new minimum. Suppose Borderlands did not close. They would have to pay their low wage employees more per hour worked. They could close during the least profitable hours (this is a very common thing small businesses do), thereby needing fewer worker-hours per day. They could streamline their processes so that they could do with, say, 2 workers what they currently do with, say, 3 (this is very hard for most small businesses, but sometimes possible). The most likely outcome, however, is that the owners of the cafe, who have been making less than $30k/year, would just take a pay cut. (But anyone who is skilled enough to own and manage Borderlands is unlikely to be willing to work for much less than that—at least not without a significantly higher income in the same household—which is in some sense why they are closing). None of those outcomes are in society's interest. What is empirically not happening with Borderlands, and is unlikely to happen with most similar businesses, is that the same number of worker-hours get worked, only with more pay for each one, and the only people who pay for this are people who are doing well. Increasing minimum wage is a distraction. It is borne of a mindset that market capitalism can solve poverty, if we just throw in a few good-sounding regulations. What is needed, I think, is non-market paradigms, namely explicit, unapologetic redistribution of wealth. Increased minimum wage isn't anything close to that.

By: feckless fecal fear mongering

feckless fecal fear mongering — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 17:00:52 -0800

Nor would it prevent wages from falling for the 95ish% workers whose current hourly wage is more than the proposed new minimum. In Canada, and I think it's similar in the USA, it's really hard to cut someone's wage down. Hours, yes. Wages, not so much. Increasing minimum wage is a distraction. Not to the people who can now, e.g., afford medication they need. Sure, it's not helping everyone. But it's helping a bunch of people, and the sick thing about the current political climate in North America is that's the best we can get. Not a reason to stop fighting, not a reason to sit on our laurels. But trust me, as someone living on disability and therefore having an income less than minimum wage, anyone who is making the minimum is going to have their lives improved by any upward movement in that number.

By: gingerest

gingerest — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 17:14:57 -0800

Alan has posted an update (the first of several planned) to discuss some of the options he's considered to keep the store open. This is an interesting proposition, if anyone knows a bookstore-loving angel investor:

I would be thrilled to set up (or help set up) a non-profit foundation to own and manage a building with the express purpose of housing a bookstore (or bookstores) as a literary and community resource. Of course, I'd be thrilled if Borderlands was the first tenant. The beautiful thing about that idea is that, regardless of Borderlands' financial health (or mine), a place like that could serve as a permanent support for bookselling, no matter how much the world and San Francisco changes.

By: andrewpcone

andrewpcone — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 17:18:38 -0800

In Canada, and I think it's similar in the USA, it's really hard to cut someone's wage down. Hours, yes. Wages, not so much. There is nothing in US labor law that prohibits lowering employees' wages. It certainly isn't customary, and it's certainly rare. But it is very common for small business owners to cut their own take-home, often drastically. It is also very common to cut people's benefits (this is the way most large institutions in the US prefer to cut wages), because people are less likely to understand just how much they are losing. It is also very common to cut the rates at which independent contractors are paid, often drastically. Truck drivers, for example, see their take home pay rise and fall quite a lot with shipping demand and diesel prices. The market has many, many ways to cut people's pay without lowering the explicit hourly wage. Much MBA thought has gone into figuring out how. But nominal cuts aren't needed at all for wages to fall. The most insidious way wages fall is inflation. In the US, nominal median household income has increasedover the past 15 years, but once you adjust for inflation, it has actually decreased slightly. It is easy for me to imagine that higher minimum wage would prolong that trend, especially for the least privileged workers. Not to the people who can now, e.g., afford medication they need. Sure, it's not helping everyone. The problem isn't who it's not helping, but who it's significantly hurting. You sure as hell can't afford medication you need if you just got fired and there are no job openings. A minimum wage does no good for those whom it costs their job. Not a reason to stop fighting, not a reason to sit on our laurels. Here I agree with you! We need to be fighting for things that will actually help poorer people, not political shell games that can easily do more harm than good. "It's the best we can do" isn't good enough if "it" isn't even really good at all. If you want a single, concrete thing to yell at your congressman about, support the increased Child Care credit Obama proposed in the SOTU address. Forget about the minimum wage part—it is not actually a good idea.

By: feckless fecal fear mongering

feckless fecal fear mongering — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 17:23:35 -0800

Forget about the minimum wage part—it is not actually a good idea. Except for the people it actually helps. And has helped since the institution of a minimum wage in the first place.

By: andrewpcone

andrewpcone — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 17:38:01 -0800

Right, you are still not acknowledging that *hurt* part. Significant hikes in the minimum wage hurt many of the very poorest workersTaking money from some poor people and giving it to other poor people, which is basically what we're talking about, is also good for *some* poor people. But it is still wrong. I am not proposing reducing minimum wage. Right now, in the vast majority of countries with a minimum wage, the minimum wage is very close to what most, but not all, employers would pay by default. The minimum wage prevents particularly unscrupulous business people from extracting huge surplus off the backs of particularly ill-positioned workers. That is a good thing. That is what minimum wage accomplishes. Barely anyone is proposing reducing the minimum wage, except maybe a few insane libertarians. But whether minimum wage can effectively alleviate poverty in the current economy is another question entirely. And the opinion of almost every expert in the field is something between "maybe, but not by much" and "no, it would be disastrous." There are many better policies for reducing poverty. Support them instead.

By: feckless fecal fear mongering

feckless fecal fear mongering — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 17:43:03 -0800

Right now, in the vast majority of countries with a minimum wage, the minimum wage is very close to what most, but not all, employers would pay by default. No, no it's not. Most employers, by default, would pay $0 if they could. Yes, people get hurt by minimum wage laws. Thus it has been since the minimum wage was instituted. There are many better policies for reducing poverty. Support them instead. I am capable of supporting many policies for reducing poverty. I am also aware of the very, very few that can actually pass.

By: andrewpcone

andrewpcone — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 17:58:09 -0800

No, no it's not. Most employers, by default, would pay $0 if they could. Yes, people get hurt by minimum wage laws. Thus it has been since the minimum wage was instituted. Until 2012 Germany had never had a minimum wage at all. And yet you would not find anyone making $0 at their jobs. In fact, you would not find many Germans making less than US minimum wage at all. Even though per capita personal income is lower in Germany than the US. Germans were not protected by a minimum wage, but by an effective social safety net and a regulatory apparatus that gave them job security. Many (but not all) were also protected by unions, to which German regulations are more favorable than US regulations. Only 1.1% of US workers make minimum wage. The other 98.9% command higher wages not by government mandate, but because that is what they are able to demand from employers from their labor. I am capable of supporting many policies for reducing poverty. I am also aware of the very, very few that can actually pass. An increased child care tax credit has a higher probability of passing than even Obama's modest $10.10 minimum wage, which has so far failed even to make it out of committee in the House. And getting minimum wage higher than that is completely unrealistic at the federal level, and likely to happen in 10 more states at most, and a handful of municipalities. Significant increases in the minimum wage are not as politically feasible as you are making them out to be. And they sap energy and credibility from more effective efforts. And, again, the minimum wage will help some poor people in part by hurting others.

By: feckless fecal fear mongering

feckless fecal fear mongering — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 18:02:19 -0800

Until 2012 Germany had never had a minimum wage at all. And yet you would not find anyone making $0 at their jobs. Germany also doesn't have the FUCK THE POOR PEOPLE attitude of the entire USA, so not really a useful comparison. Given that attitude in the USA, a minimum wage is absolutely damn necessary. And the rate it's at in most places doesn't actually provide enough money to live on. Do you disagree?

By: andrewpcone

andrewpcone — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 18:12:12 -0800

I agree! It is nowhere near enough to live on! I am quite sure of this, having lived on less (as an independent contractor). The question is how to get them that money. If I believed that there was no other policy alternative on the table, I might even support increasing the minimum wage. But there is. It is tax credits for child care and earned income. Those have even passed in recent memory, and are now a matter of law. The work should be to increase them. Switching from sales to income tax at the state level is also politically feasible in some places, and very helpful to the poor. The FUCK THE POOR PEOPLE attitude is precisely what needs to go. In Germany, the lack of that attitude manifests in large monetary benefits for the poor, the very young, and the very old. And that is what we need here. I'm just saying that even though German culture as a whole is much more poor-friendly, that did not, for most of it's history, cause them to want a minimum wage. And it *did* cause them to pass policies that actually protect poor people.

By: Etrigan

Etrigan — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 18:13:53 -0800

Only 1.1% of US workers make minimum wage. It's amazing how much effort is expended on not letting that 1.1% make a little more, isn't it.

By: smoke

smoke — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 18:16:26 -0800

As someone, Luke literally every citizen of a western country that's not the us, I find the minimum wage debate in the us so distorted and immoral, it just blows my mind. Minimum wage here is like twenty bucks an hour, more on weekends and at night. Until recently our dollar was at parity and the apocalypse has not ensued. It can and should be done.

By: rtha

rtha — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 18:19:20 -0800

I was wondering when we would get to the point in the discussion where the minimum wage is simultaneously responsible for a cascade of ills but it only has an effect on a very small percent of workers so it doesn't matter what we do or don't do to it.

By: feckless fecal fear mongering

feckless fecal fear mongering — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 18:19:37 -0800

Yeah, that's the thing. 'High' minimum wages have been instituted all over the world, and the results (as with so many other things: healthcare, drug policy, parental leave, etc) are published and plain to see. America isn't special. You're not different. What works for humans elsewhere will work for you. The only problem is ideology. American Exceptionalism needs to die in a chemical fire.

By: andrewpcone

andrewpcone — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 18:30:04 -0800

Etrigan: That 1.1% would not in fact *all* make more. According to most research, some of it would make less, because they would have their hours or whole jobs cut. That is what the CBO report found. That is what most expert reports find. Rtha: I was not disparaging the importance of the 1.1%. I was just making the point that minimum wages are not the lower bound on the vast majority of workers' earnings. Also, beyond the 1.1%, is 11.2% in the U-6, which is the most comprehensive measurement of unemployment. That number is what is likely to grow with more minimum wage. And in general, it's much better to be in the 1.1% that make some wage than the 11.2% that are not fully employed. Feckless: Actually US minimum wage is fairly high when you scale it with purchasing power parity (ie, adjust for the cost of living). The minimum wage in France is $14/hour if you just convert the currency, but only $11/hour if you adjust for purchasing power. And France has 10.4% unemployment (measured in a way more like the U-3 in the US, which is 5.6%) I think most experts believe that France would see significantly less unemployment if its minimum wage was lower. Also, remember that France has a huge social safety net that the US does not. Unemployment is a much worse fate in the US than in France. Doing things that could increase US unemployment *before* imporoving the social safety net is a very, very bad idea. „e should not kick people out of their jobs just because we would *like* there to be a better social safety net that there isn't about to be.

By: feckless fecal fear mongering

feckless fecal fear mongering — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 18:33:51 -0800

So we should let people keep suffering because there is no political will to end suffering? Come on.

By: andrewpcone

andrewpcone — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 18:35:56 -0800

And this really has nothing to do with American exceptionalism. Germany has not historically relied on a minimum wage, and has taken care of poor people far better than the US. Many western European countries have minimum wages very close to that of the US. Separately, you should be open minded to considering that even though the poor have it worse in the US than in most industrialized countries, that difference is despite, not because of, the somewhat lower minimum wage in the US. Determining that is a difficult questions of measurement, not something that can be inferred from overall outcomes.

By: feckless fecal fear mongering

feckless fecal fear mongering — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 18:38:08 -0800

The 'somewhat' lower minimum wage is a symptom of the problem, yes. And since reality won't allow attacking the actual problem, symptomatic approaches are all that's left. Do you disagree?

By: andrewpcone

andrewpcone — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 18:38:20 -0800

So we should let people keep suffering because there is no political will to end suffering? Come on. You seem very attached to the idea that minimum wage will reduce suffering. That is not widely agreed on by people who study the question for a living. I don't see why you think you know better. And there is more political will to do many other things that help poor people, namely wage subsidies and child care tax credits. So we should do that. That's all.

By: andrewpcone

andrewpcone — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 18:40:40 -0800

And since reality won't allow attacking the actual problem, symptomatic approaches are all that's left. Do you disagree? Yes! But I don't even think the minimum wage hikes will treat the problem symptomatically. I would support them if I did. Look, I've made my points. Here is what I would ask of you, and what I will do myself. Watch what happens in SF and Seattle carefully over the next 5 years. I think you will not be pleased with the results. I will watch too, and I will keep reading whatever analysis comes my way, and listening to what people say here. I'll do my best to be open minded.

By: feckless fecal fear mongering

feckless fecal fear mongering — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 18:42:57 -0800

But I don't even think the minimum wage hikes will treat the problem symptomatically. They absolutely treat the problem of 'less money in my pocket' for the people who are employed. Are there other problems? Yes. No question.

By: andrewpcone

andrewpcone — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 18:46:51 -0800

OK, I think we agree as much as we're going to. Hopefully we can also agree that we do not know what the outcomes of these wage hikes will be, and that our future opinions should be informed by measurable observations.

By: feckless fecal fear mongering

feckless fecal fear mongering — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 18:51:26 -0800

Or you could look at the rest of the world where wage hikes have happened to see results. America isn't special. Sorry.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 18:57:42 -0800

"But no one has tried to raise the minimum wage as acutely as is being done in SF. So yeah, maybe SF could raise the minimum wage from $10.74 to $12 with no ill effect, but that doesn't go on forever." This is nonsense. The Card-Kreuger study was based on an increase from $3.35 to $5.05 per hour, a roughly 50 percent increase. "Note that expert opinion is far from uniform on this subject:" They're not uniform on whether or not increasing the minimum wage would make it harder for low-skill workers to get employment. But the plurality is significantly in favor of the increase due to the overall positive effects. What the left-leaning media fails to note, or tries to brush off, is that the same report also concludes that about 500,000 jobs would be lost. LEFT-LEANING MEDIA lol "Those who are most privileged—ie, those who are least likely to be relying on those jobs—will be precisely the ones most able to keep them." Let's see some data on that. Why wouldn't that put upward pressure on other employers? "Here's another misconception: that increasing the minimum wage would redistribute income from the rich to the poor. This is 100% speculation; there is no evidence to suggest this is true. " Given that the CBO report you cite shows an increase in income for everyone below six times the poverty threshold, and a significant decrease in those above six times the poverty threshold, that seems like a claim that isn't supported by the data. "If minimum wage is raised, we can expect many independent businesses to fold like Borderlands, the least privileged low wage workers to become chronically unemployed, the more privileged ones to make more money. " Or it could have little effect overall on small businesses, a mixed to negligible effect on the chronically unemployed, and allow nearly all of the minimum wage workers to take home a bit more. You know, from studies around the similar increases in SF prior, and comparable cities. "Some of those are more politically feasible than others. All of them are worth lobbying for. All of them, would have a far more conclusive benefit to poor people than an increased minimum wage. Unfortunately, all of them more obviously cost money, unlike the minimum wage, which is seductive in part because it is not something the government must directly finance." I agree that they're (in general) better policies, but that doesn't preclude also lobbying for an increased minimum wage. "But nominal cuts aren't needed at all for wages to fall. The most insidious way wages fall is inflation. In the US, nominal median household income has increased over the past 15 years, but once you adjust for inflation, it has actually decreased slightly. " That's rather glossing over the historically low inflation rates that we've had, with these last 15 years being roughly half the cumulative inflation rate of the previous 15. "The problem isn't who it's not helping, but who it's significantly hurting. You sure as hell can't afford medication you need if you just got fired and there are no job openings. A minimum wage does no good for those whom it costs their job." ... except that previous SF increases haven't significantly increased unemployment, and if you want to make a serious argument about harms from more detailed numbers you're going to have to hunt some up. Because the Berkeley Institute for Research on Labor and Employment shows a net benefit for people of color, women and historically marginalized groups. Until 2012 Germany had never had a minimum wage at all. And yet you would not find anyone making $0 at their jobs. In fact, you would not find many Germans making less than US minimum wage at all. Even though per capita personal income is lower in Germany than the US. Right, mostly because of the high percentage of union membership and the greater legality of wage collusion for employers. And why have they instituted a minimum wage? Because their union membership has fallen to about what the U.S. had at its peak. This point doesn't prove what you think it does. Only 1.1% of US workers make minimum wage. The other 98.9% command higher wages not by government mandate, but because that is what they are able to demand from employers from their labor." ... and they're able to use the minimum wage as a floor for negotiations; increasing the minimum wage helps increase wages across the board. "Also, beyond the 1.1%, is 11.2% in the U-6, which is the most comprehensive measurement of unemployment. That number is what is likely to grow with more minimum wage. And in general, it's much better to be in the 1.1% that make some wage than the 11.2% that are not fully employed." But the U-6 includes people who have stopped looking for work, and you said they'd be drawn to the new higher wages. "You seem very attached to the idea that minimum wage will reduce suffering. That is not widely agreed on by people who study the question for a living. I don't see why you think you know better." Well, given that the consensus is that an increase in the minimum wage would on net decrease suffering while increasing it for some, that's a bit of a dubious argument (ignoring the appeal to authority inherent). "Look, I've made my points. Here is what I would ask of you, and what I will do myself. Watch what happens in SF and Seattle carefully over the next 5 years. I think you will not be pleased with the results." Can we watch what's happened in SF over the last decade? Because your doom and gloom hasn't actually been reflected in their experiences.

By: rtha

rtha — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 18:58:30 -0800

Watch what happens in SF and Seattle carefully over the next 5 years. Here's a history of San Francisco's minimum wage rates over the last decade; we don't have to operate in a context- or evidence-free vacuum. Its rise is probably responsible for some bad stuff. I'd like to see some actual evidence that it and only it is responsible for all the bad stuff.

By: rtha

rtha — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 18:59:05 -0800

Doh. I owe klang a coke.

By: MisantropicPainforest

MisantropicPainforest — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 20:16:05 -0800

I can safely say that andrewpcone is vastly overstating experts believes about the alleged detrimental effects of the minimum wage. Also, if raising the minimum wage is bad, then inflation is good, ceretis paribus.

By: MisantropicPainforest

MisantropicPainforest — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 20:37:49 -0800

This is nonsense. The Card-Kreuger study was based on an increase from $3.35 to $5.05 per hour, a roughly 50 percent increase. $4.25 to $5.05. but your point is the same (although I and a lot of others have a problem with the Card-Kreuger study) Anyway, consistent ratchinging up the minimum wage would just keep it up with inflation, so anyone who is against raising the minimum wage is really for lowering it.

By: batfish

batfish — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 21:16:39 -0800

except that previous SF increases haven't significantly increased unemployment, On it's face, "unemployment" seems like a potentially tendentious marker for the SF case, for a number of reasons. Not least, if you're unemployed in SF, it's decently likely you're not long for SF. A better one would be something like the growth/change in total supply of the traditionally minimum wage job pool.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 23:55:50 -0800

"$4.25 to $5.05. but your point is the same (although I and a lot of others have a problem with the Card-Kreuger study) Anyway, consistent ratchinging up the minimum wage would just keep it up with inflation, so anyone who is against raising the minimum wage is really for lowering it." Ah, sorry. I conflated the federal and NJ wages; since the feds were raised first (from $3.35) I mistakenly thought that NJ had started on that level despite several explicit mentions of the actual change elsewhere.

By: corb

corb — Wed, 04 Feb 2015 08:51:58 -0800

Germany also doesn't have the FUCK THE POOR PEOPLE attitude of the entire USA, so not really a useful comparison. If the problem is social attitudes in the US, then that is a problem that is fixable by social means, not legislative.

By: feckless fecal fear mongering

feckless fecal fear mongering — Wed, 04 Feb 2015 13:52:50 -0800

If the problem is social attitudes in the US, then that is a problem that is fixable by social means, not legislative. Yeah, no. The real world doesn't work that way. Legislation is very, very often used to change social attitudes.

By: alexei

alexei — Wed, 04 Feb 2015 16:01:46 -0800

If you want people to be able to afford a 1BM apartment in SF you'd best up that min. wage to $30. There are certainly a lot of people who can't afford 1 BR apartments in SF today, who make do with roommates or with long commutes. You could double--triple--quadruple their wages, and what would happen? The competition for the few available apartments, and their prices, would simply enter a new level of ridiculousness, as a lot of people will spend their new income on trying to outbid each other to remain in the city. "San Francisco could make it happen that it is able to retain its funky low-margin businesses. For example renting out some some city-owned spaces for $1/mo. to artistic enterprises like bookstores and galleries. Or subsidizing their existing rents. Or exempting them from property taxes. Not that it should even matter but arguably this kind of investment could pay for itself in increased tourism and in maintaining a vibrant and diverse retail environment leading to overall higher tax collection. That is, by no means is this a problem without a solution. It's just a problem without a suitably free market solution, so...oh well, nothing to be done, remember the buggy whip, etc." Increased tourism? It's not like SF is hurting for tourists at the moment, and it's not like there's a lot of unused capacity. If tourism is increased further, the most immediate result will be increased hotel room rates, increased demand for AirBNB, and more businesses catering to tourists with money to spend. Will it result in increased tax revenue? Sure. But it'll also result in SF becoming even more unaffordable to the average resident-- and even to the average tourist. Likewise, "maintaining a vibrant and diverse retail environment leading to overall higher tax collection"? In other words, "we'll make this a more desirable place to run a business, commercial rents and sales will go up, and our investment will pay off through increased tax collections!". And it might just work. But property values going up is exactly the thing which caused the problem in the first place.

By: vacapinta

vacapinta — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 02:42:24 -0800

A personal note from Alan who has been outspoken about this in the store's recent newsletters. A Personal Note by Alan Beatts For the sake of clarity, there are three things I want to say up front -- 1) If you don't believe that small, locally-owned businesses are an important part of the fabric of a community and that they are worth preserving, you and I will not agree about much of what follows. That's fine with me and, though I disagree with you, I think that your opinion is perfectly valid. But, there may not be much point in you continuing to read this. So, I believe that small, local businesses are valuable and worthy of support. 2) I don't know if the changes to San Francisco's minimum wage are objectively good or bad. I know that those changes mean I'm going to close my store and, personally, that is a bad thing. But I don't believe just because something is bad for me, that is it objectively "bad". The question of whether a minimum wage is "good" or "bad" (and what amount it should be) seems to me a hugely complex issue. And I'm not an economist or any other sort of expert on the subject; I just sell books. I've read arguments on both sides of the issue and, on the face of them, they all seem to have some valid points. I just don't know. I do believe, however, if tens of thousands of people are going to benefit from the increase, their well being is much more important than the continued existence of my bookstore. So, I don't know if the higher minimum wage in San Francisco is, objectively, good or bad. 3) My complaint is, despite knowing that this change would be hard for small retail stores, especially bookstores, the city government did nothing in drafting the law to alleviate the negative effects on those businesses, despite giving lip-service to the idea that they are important. When the law passed, Mayor Ed Lee said, "We can give a well-deserved raise to our lowest-wage workers, and we can do it in a way that protects jobs and small business." Scott Wiener, the city supervisor for the district where Borderlands is located, said last Monday night on the news, "I know that bookstores are in a tough position, and this did come up during the discussions on minimum wage". But there are no elements in the wage ordinance or any other ordinance, that offer any new protections or assistance for small businesses. All businesses are treated the same, regardless of size or ownership, despite the acknowledgement that at least some of us are in "a tough position". So, I see no sign the people responsible for drafting the law took steps to "protect" small businesses. And so, without a way I can see to make Borderlands financially viable over the long term, we're going to close the store. And it sucks. I've already talked about all the things I considered doing to avoid closing, along with the reasons that they won't work. I've also explained what it would take to stay open (by the way, no phone calls yet from Elon Musk or those other guys). But I haven't really said much about how I feel about all of this and what I, personally, think. It blows, it sucks, and I hate it. It has made me miserable for months, and it's still scaring the crap out of me. I've been a bookseller for more than a third of my life and I loved it. It was the best, most fun, happiest-making thing I've ever done. Because of it, I've not only made a ton of wonderful friends but I also met the person that I suspect I'm going to spend the rest of my life with. And now it's about to be over. On a basic level, a small business like mine isn't much different from an individual's personal finances. A certain amount of money comes in (sales or a paycheck), some money needs to be spent so that the money will keep coming in (the wholesale cost of merchandise or the price of work clothes, commuting, tools and so forth), and then money has to be spent to keep the whole thing functioning (rent and payroll or . . . rent and food). Most businesses have two expenses that are bigger by far than anything else -- rent and payroll (our payroll is 43% of our expenses). Most people have one expense that is bigger than anything else -- housing (in San Francisco right now, that averages at 50% of income). Let me ask this: how would things work out for you if your housing cost was going to go up by 39% in the next three years? The situation isn't much different for me. And, much like many of you, I can't go to my boss (i.e. customers) and say, "Hey, I've got this expense that's going to go up a bunch in the next three years. Can I have a 13% raise every year for the next three?" For most employees, your boss is going to say, "Nice working with you, hope things go well at your next job." Borderlands is part of a sub-set of San Francisco retail businesses that are going to get screwed by the increase in minimum wage. As I've said before, the price of a new book is set by the publisher and I don't believe that it is realistic to charge more for it. On top of that, because of discounts on ecommerce sites, people are hesitant to pay that nominal retail price. So bookstores that focus on new books are in a very, very difficult position. I think we're the first bookstore to close because of this. I'm damn sure we're not the last. On the other hand, I can think of several stores that should be OK because of elements of their business structure. Basically, many used bookstores, along with any shop that owns its premises, should be alright. But, beyond bookstores, there's a larger class of stores that are going to have some trouble in the next few years. Any small-to-medium-sized retailer is likely to have some problems and the ones that are under pressure from online and national retailers are really going to feel the heat. For example take indy hardware stores like Discount Builders Supply or Cole Hardware. They're getting squeezed on one side by places like Home Depot and Lowes, who undercut them on price (and, often, quality -- but that's another story) and on the other side by Amazon.com. If you want cheap lumber, you go to Home Depot and if you want a cheap power or hand tool, you go to Amazon. The higher minimum wage in San Francisco doesn't matter at all to Amazon.com or most other internet retailers. It has no effect on them since none of their minimum wage workers are in SF. And, for a national chain like Lowes, Target, or Best Buy, the higher wages they pay in San Francisco are insignificant when factored into the total wages they pay nationwide. But the local stores like Discount Builders Supply or Cole Hardware carry the entire expense of higher wages without other locations to offset it. Since retail workers are usually near the bottom of the wage scale, expenses are going to increase for local retailers, even if they don't pay minimum wage to start. In other words, as the minimum wage increases, it will pass the current starting wage at many companies. And, once it passes the starting wage and continues upwards, it may well exceed the current wage of lower level supervisory staff, which will require increases in their pay as well. After all, one doesn't have much motivation to perform the more demanding duties of a supervisor if the pay is the same as starting wage. Consequently a 39% increase in the minimum wage will increase payroll and therefore total expenses, even for companies that pay more than minimum wage right now. I really hope that most of the small local stores in San Francisco will be able to adjust to these changes, but I'm not sure that they will be able to. But why do I hope that? What difference does it make? I live here because it has character. It's not Mall-Land-USA. And that is really important to me. Based on conversations with the other people I know who live here, it's important to them too. But, if we make it harder and harder for our local businesses to operate here, we're going to lose them and the character that they bring. In the end, more and more of the companies who can afford to pay our high rents, high payroll, and high taxes are going to be the companies that are in every goddam strip mall in the US. And I think that will really and truly suck. So, does that mean I'm against a higher, local minimum wage? Not exactly. I'm not sure what I think about it. But I am pretty sure about some of the effects of it: Prices are going to go up at businesses that have some flexibility (bars, restaurants, cafes, and so on -- probably even at used book and record shops, the few that are left). I think that's a good thing. People with more money tend to eat out more often and generally spend more, so the higher prices, which support a higher minimum wage, actually shift money from people with more of it to people with less of it. I don't have a problem with people making a lot of money (good for them, in fact) but I do believe that income inequality is a big problem, especially in San Francisco. Hotel prices are going to go up too, for much the same reasons. There might be a downside there because that could decrease tourism. Fewer tourists mean less business for places and people who depend on them. But, on the other hand, it's not like there's going to be any shortage of people who are coming here for business and, expensive as it is, plenty of tourists go to New York City every year. Let's call that effect a wash - part good and part bad. As I mentioned, local retail businesses are going to suffer. If they close as a result, that costs jobs and decreases the diversity of the city. Also, local businesses tend to put more money into the local economy than non-local ones. So, I'm going to call that a bad thing. The whole picture is very complicated and trying to figure out all the winners and all the losers is probably impossible. Which is why I'm not sure what I think about the law, overall. All of us are going to have to wait and see how things are in a few years before any objective judgement could be made. But, what pisses me off is that I believe that the law could have been drafted in a way that minimized a bunch of the negative effects for small businesses without diluting the positive ones very much, if at all. San Francisco already recognizes, legally, that there are differences in the financial demands that a small business can bear versus a large business. Both the gross receipts tax and the payroll tax it is replacing include exemptions for smaller businesses. Likewise, the law requiring employers to provide health insurance only applies to businesses with more than 12 employees. Further, the planning code treats businesses with a large number of locations differently from businesses with only a few, by way of the formula retail restrictions in the planning code. But when City Hall was working to create a compromise minimum wage ordinance, the ultimate result was no consideration for small businesses. Even the original proposal only gave smaller businesses one extra year to bring their wages up. The final law actually gave larger businesses just as much time as was originally proposed for smaller businesses. I think that lack of consideration was a mistake and the small retail businesses in this city, along with all the people who benefit from them, are going to pay the price for it. Would I suggest that small businesses should have been exempt from the minimum wage ordinance? If they had been, this might play out differently. Let's say that the new minimum wages applied only to businesses that either have more than 11 locations worldwide (that's the threshold for "formula retail" per the SF planning code) or have more than $1,000,000 per year in gross receipts (that's the threshold below which a company is exempt from paying business taxes in SF). Realistically, just setting the threshold at $1,000,000 in receipts would be enough, since I doubt that there are any businesses that have 11 locations that don't make that much money. Borderlands along with a host of other businesses would be exempt from paying higher wages and wouldn't be facing the upcoming battle to raise income to make up for it. But we wouldn't be unaffected by it. In three years, if I wanted to hire someone or even keep my current staff, I'd have to either be offering wages that were competitive (i.e. close to $15 per hour) or I would have to be offering something else that was attractive enough to make up for a much lower wage (i.e. good benefits, super-flexible hours, perks like free books, and so on). If I couldn't do either of those things, I'd go out of business or have to downscale so that I didn't need to have any employees. If the law had been written that way, it would have given me, and a lot of the other business owners out there, the opportunity to try to work out the problem in a flexible, imaginative way. That wage structure would also offer an advantage to small businesses during their most delicate time -- when they're ju st getting started. Of course, I suspect that the standards that I suggested above are probably not the right ones, or are not at the right levels, but hope they were useful for the purpose of example. But the basic idea -- that we could have had two (or more) levels of minimum wage based on a businesses' size -- could have made the next three years an interesting renaissance for small businesses in the city. Instead I think that they're going to be difficult years indeed. The bottom line is that the new law places a greater burden on small businesses without any accompanying action to ease the strain. In essence, business owners like myself are being asked to spend a lot more money to operate and there is nothing coming our way that even begins to make up for that added expense. I think is some validity in the argument that, if income goes up, than spending increases, which means more sales for businesses. But I don't think that increase in income creates enough spending to offset the added expenses for businesses. Is the only thing that would have helped an exemption from the minimum wage? Not at all. It could have been a break on our business licenses or business property tax (San Francisco is one of the few cites that levies that tax, by the way -- it means that each year I pay taxes on every bookshelf, fixture, computer and other piece of equipment in my store). It could have been incentives to landlords to offer us lower rents or a system of low-rent, city-owned buildings to act as business "incubators" or city-backed, low-interest loans so business owners could buy our buildings. If there had been the will and interest, I'm sure there are many things that could have been done to support small businesses and increase wages. But nothing has been done at all. I don't actually find the lack of concern that surprising. Places like Borderlands Books, Flax Art & Design, Cliff's Hardware, Amoeba Records and Lost Weekend Video aren't Uber, Twitter, or AirBnB. When it gets down to it, I don't think that anyone with real power in this city gives a damn about small businesses anymore. I hate to be so cynical, but there it is. However, I do think that there are many, many people still in SF who do care about small businesses, local artists, musicians, and all the other little, insignificant people and endeavors that used to be a cardinal part of our heart and soul. But then I wonder -- if that's true, why is the incumbent mayor running without any real challenger? There's no way in hell I'd want Ed Lee's job, and I loathe politics. But I'm about to have an awful lot of spare time. If someone were running for mayor who I believed cared about the people who've lived here for 10, 20, 30 years and the businesses they run -- I might suddenly feel a burning urge to volunteer for their campaign. On the other hand, for the early part of my life, I never believed that the powers-that-be could ever be anything other than a problem for me. But then I opened Borderlands and my viewpoint shifted. Given how the last 18 years are ending, I'm thinking that is a choice that I should revisit.

By: Nelson

Nelson — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 18:40:39 -0800

An Opportunity for Borderlands to Stay Open. "Each sponsorship will cost $100 for the year and will need to be renewed every year. If we get 300 sponsors before March 31st, we will stay open for the remainder of 2015." Sometimes euthanasia is the kindest option.

By: gingerest

gingerest — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 18:44:42 -0800

Sometimes it is, but sometimes when there's a unique resource in a community, extreme measures are warranted to protect it.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:26:10 -0800

I'm passing it along to some friends who would pay $100 per year not to necessarily have a sci-fi bookstore in the neighborhood but to prevent some artisanal bootblack or other tech carriage house from springing up in its place.

By: jenfullmoon

jenfullmoon — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:47:05 -0800

I wish them luck, but this was kinda what I was doing with Borders back in the day by buying their membership. Deja vu.

By: vacapinta

vacapinta — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 02:03:09 -0800

It looks like they're going to stay open! Within 24 hours of asking for help, they got 260 of the 300 memberships they wanted to get by March 31. What I've got to offer is just this -- the last 26 hours have been some of the best and most remarkable hours that I've spent in my life. The news about our sponsorship program went out at six yesterday evening. By eight that evening we had over 60 people signed up. One of them was calling from New Zealand. Another had been married at the store. At one point last night, Borderlands was one of the top five trending topics on Twitter. When I woke up this morning, my email was filled with notes from people saying things like, "I'll call as soon as you open", "Mailed the check this morning" and "I knew you'd come up with something". I knew that people liked the store and even loved it. But I never, in my wildest dreams, would have imagined that so many people liked it so much.

By: jenfullmoon

jenfullmoon — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 15:15:27 -0800

Can sponsorship save small bookstores?