San Diego Union-Tribune (Sunday)
In the weeds
If this effort is prompted by the Great Resignation, it is misguided. Job replacement is not a function of shortening workweeks, presumably as an enticement for people to go back to work, albeit shorter hours. Rather, jobs can be filled by the combination of higher salaries, immigration, technology and other overhauls to work conditions. Shorter workweeks can be selectively implemented by companies. But only they should be tinkering with their bottom line.
London Moeder Advisors
A reduction in work hours without a commensurate reduction in pay essentially forces business to give their employees a 25 percent salary increase without increasing productivity. That increase in overhead would force businesses to ultimately pass those costs to consumers. Since the pandemic began and through the Great Resignation, businesses continue to struggle to hire workers. This bill would be devastating for the California economy.
SANDAG
While AB 2932 only applies to non-exempt employees for employers with 500 or more employees, the ripple effects could be substantial. This significant rise in labor costs will not be sustainable for many businesses and costs will inevitably be passed on to consumers. A limited workweek could also worsen our existing labor shortage. Instead of our state government imposing more restrictions and regulations that will force businesses to leave our state and impact our state’s economy, they should leave it to individual businesses and their workers to resolve.
Intellisolutions
I vehemently support changes to labor policy including a substantially higher national minimum wage, paid parental leave, and, where appropriate, a four, 10-hour day workweek for a better work-life balance. The proposed legislation would cause innumerable complications from a spike in labor costs (and companies highly incentivized to move jobs out of state) to a potential hiring crunch (in a low-unemployment environment, driving inflation much higher).
Weave Growth
My dumbest investment was buying shares of a company in the marijuana business. I bought it after very little research, knowing only that weed stocks were rising. Now it just sits in my portfolio and stares at me — with its loss of 50 percent. I’m hoping it rises a bit so I can sell.
— V., online
The Fool responds: You started off well, noticing a sector that was experiencing a lot of growth — more states and countries have been legalizing the use of marijuana, both medical and recreational. High-growth sectors can be great places to spot high-growth companies — but it can also be hard to figure out which companies will dominate in the future, and which will fizzle out.
With lots of marijuana companies around these days, many are lowering prices in an attempt to boost their market share. That can be an effective strategy, but it can also lead to shrinking earnings and perhaps prolonged losses.
Think twice about hanging on to your shares in the hope of a rebound. Some research into the company may be in order. If you don’t have much confidence about its future, just sell, take the loss and focus on one or more stocks that are more promising. Otherwise, you may end up waiting a long time while many great alternative stocks grow in value.