Proposition 32: the main arguments
Proposition 32 was one of the closest statewide votes of 2024. The points below summarize, in neutral terms, the main arguments each side made during the campaign as reported by nonpartisan voter guides. This site takes no position on the measure.
What supporters argued
- An $18 minimum would have reached roughly two million workers who are not covered by a higher local or industry-specific wage floor.
- Higher pay would help families afford basic needs, and much of the extra money would be spent at local businesses.
- Better wages could reduce the number of working families who rely on public assistance programs.
- Supporters pointed to UC Berkeley research that found no significant job losses from California's gradual increase to $15 an hour.
What opponents argued
- Employers were already absorbing higher supply and labor costs from inflation and an incomplete recovery from the pandemic.
- A faster increase would put particular pressure on small businesses and could lead to higher prices.
- Opponents cited a survey in West Hollywood, where 42% of businesses said they had laid off staff or cut hours after the city set a $19.08 minimum wage.
- The existing law already raises the minimum wage every year with inflation, without a fixed jump.
The state's fiscal estimate
The Legislative Analyst's Office, the Legislature's nonpartisan fiscal adviser, concluded that the measure's effect on state and local budgets was uncertain and could go in either direction.
Government costs could rise because public employers and contractors would pay higher wages, but they could also fall because fewer people would qualify for health and human services programs. The analysts estimated that the change in costs likely would not exceed the high hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
On the revenue side they expected state and local tax revenues likely to decrease, by an amount that likely would not exceed a few hundred million dollars a year.