An Alternative To Raising Minimum Wage

One of the potential drawbacks to raising the minimum wage is that businesses often pass on the increased labor costs to customers. While the intent is to help low-income workers, the reality is that only certain prices, particularly those tied to minimum wage labor, tend to rise. This can result in significant increases in the costs of essential goods and services like milk and housing construction, as we witnessed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, luxury goods remain unaffected. In essence, raising the minimum wage can inadvertently lead to a disproportionate rise in the cost of living for the very population it aims to assist. Additionally, it can put additional strain on businesses, forcing some to close, relocate, or resort to paying employees “under the table.” These outcomes can ultimately reduce tax revenues that could otherwise support essential social services.

In light of these challenges, an alternative approach worth exploring is the concept of a Citizen’s Dividend. This innovative strategy involves providing a no-strings-attached cash refund to every citizen and their dependents. Some cities, such as Austin and Denver, have already experimented with this approach, and the results have been promising, particularly in reducing housing and food insecurity among their residents. A Citizen’s Dividend can be financed by reallocating funds from unnecessary expenditures or through a more equitable taxation system.

It is essential that we prioritize the goal of fostering a thriving local economy. To achieve this, we should consider alternative solutions like the Citizen’s Dividend, which can help address the financial struggles of our citizens without inadvertently raising the cost of living or burdening businesses. Let’s adopt a forward-thinking approach that truly benefits our community.

Rotary Club – Benefit Corporations

Download the slides here.

I recently gave a talk to the Rotary Club of Los Alamos about benefit corporations. A benefit corporation, also known as a B Corporation, is a type of legal entity that is designed to prioritize social and environmental objectives alongside financial ones. Unlike traditional corporations, which are typically focused solely on maximizing shareholder profits, benefit corporations are legally required to consider the impact of their decisions on a variety of stakeholders, including employees, customers, suppliers, communities, and the environment.

If that sounds like something that interests you, please get in touch with me!

Doing Business For Good

Since the Industrial Revolution, corporations have been responsible for some of the greatest injustices – from pollution to wage slavery to war – in the name of profit. In 1970, American economist and Nobel laureate Milton Friedman famously said, “the Social Responsibility of Business is to increase its Profits.” That statement has been widely criticized as justifying these extractive and exploitative business practices. In 1994, British entrepreneur John Elkington redefined corporate responsibility with the Triple Bottom Line: businesses are not only responsible to shareholders but also for their economic, social, and environmental impact on society. A growing number of entrepreneurs and CEOs are rethinking what kind of legacy they will leave as they shift their priorities from shareholders to stakeholders. Thirty-five states including New Mexico have adopted benefit corporation legislation to protect business operators who value their impact as much as their profits. Over 4000 Certified B Corps have been recognized for their commitment to the highest standards of social and environmental responsibility.

During the Fall 2022 semester, I participated in UNM’s Business For Good Clinic. The goals of the 16-week course were to teach students how businesses can be used for positive social, environmental, and economic change and bring students and local companies together to improve their impact through the B Impact Assessment (BIA). During the classes, we learned skills to help us with our semester project such as team dynamics and measuring corporate responsibility. There was plenty of time after each lecture to engage in thoughtful discussions about the topics.

My team worked with TruFit Adaptive Fitness whose mission is to make fitness more accessible to people with physical disabilities. This project gave us first-hand experience with the B Corp certification process. A business must score 80 or more points in the BIA to achieve Certified B Corp status. We learned how businesses must approach the BIA differently to maximize their points. For example, using 100% renewable energy is worth 0.33 points while donating 12.5% or more of your revenues is worth 12.63 points. We were able to help TruFit focus on areas where they could have an impact like relative job growth and hiring underrepresented people because they are a small and growing company. On the other hand, there are fewer opportunities for them to score points in the Environment section because they have no manufacturing and little consumption. The good news is that the BIA is continuously being evaluated and improved to be more equitable so that businesses can be rewarded for having a more diverse impact.

The class also included guest speakers from local B Corps who gave us their perspectives on B Corp certification, lessons learned in achieving it, and where they are headed in their journey to do good. Each speaker focused on a different impact area: governance, workers, community, environment, and customers. They provided insights into challenges and opportunities to be a business for good like providing workforce housing assistance, waste reduction programs, identifying responsible suppliers, engaging with lawmakers to shape policy for good, measuring performance, and developing processes to gather and maintain institutional knowledge.

One speaker – Sam Wolf from Falling Colors – especially helped me to understand a fundamental criticism of free market capitalism: Corporations fail to account for their economic, social, and environmental impact. For example, a company saves money by using a manufacturing process that emits more greenhouse gases, but it doesn’t know how much it affects farmers’ crops a continent away. A company may pay substandard wages while the welfare system picks up the slack. While these may seem like obvious injustices, others can be more insidious. In my community, a federal contractor enjoys a seemingly unconstrained budget to create new jobs. So what’s wrong with more employment? These jobs compete with local small businesses for workers. Why wait tables or build houses when you can get paid more sitting at a desk doing bureaucratic busy work? The result is a company town devoid of business diversity. This is not in the long-term interests of the company because workers who produce value for the company will move to communities where local business diversity offers a better quality of life.

As Alex Edmans notes, the problem is many of today’s corporate leaders – and those in government that are supposed to hold them accountable – practice the narrow-minded version of Friedman doctrine. That is, they sacrifice the long-term futures of stakeholders at large for smaller, short-term gains of the shareholders. There is another interpretation of Friedman’s statement that long-term profits depend on long-term positive community impact. As Ryan Honeyman notes in the B Corp Handbook, “governments and nonprofits are insufficient to address society’s greatest challenges.” Government moves too slowly, and nonprofits are limited financially. Businesses must work with their communities to ensure prosperity for all. For that to happen, we need an immediate and drastic change in leadership to those who will press forward with reinventing business as a force for good. Consumers must also support these community-minded businesses with their wallets. The post-COVID economic crisis makes that especially challenging, but also more necessary than ever that we abandon consumption-led, wealth-concentrating business models.

The final lesson I learned is that while doing business for good is a virtuous path, it is also long, difficult, and sometimes messy. B Lab has been criticized for its opaque self-regulation and controversial certifications. Critics have also said that B Lab needs to do more to ensure B Corps are doing good holistically. However, it is a relatively young movement and there will be growing pains as we all figure this out. As long as the B Economy continues to grow and hold itself accountable to do better, I believe we have a fighting chance to get out of the hole our corporate predecessors dug for us.

I’ll be presenting on the topics of this article at the Rotary Club meeting on Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 12:00 PM in the Cottonwood on the Greens community meeting room (4290 Diamond Drive). [Zoom link]


Los Alamos Chamber of Commerce Candidate Forum

The Los Alamos Chamber of Commerce invited County Council candidates to participate in a forum directed at local businesses. This was my favorite forum because business — especially local and small business — is one of my favorite political subjects. In my opinion, one of the biggest, most fixable problems for small business in Los Alamos is how the local government favors big out-of-town business over small, local ones. That is one of the main reasons I’m running for County Council.

Cautious Optimism In The Face Of Land Barons And Warehouses

Columbus Capital owns or intends to own all of the properties between the Hilltop and the Fire Department.

Los Alamos has a $5B industry, a local government budget of $15k per person, and a median household income of $120k. You would think it could sustain a local pizza parlor. Being the healthiest county in the US, you would think it could support a medical facility that can treat a dislocated pinky on a Saturday. (Ask me how I know.) Yet, we struggle with these essential services as well as our fire, transit, recreation, and virtually all other services for the same reason: people don’t want to work here because there’s nowhere to live and nothing to do. Local property ownership creates the ideal conditions to empower equity in housing and inclusivity of local businesses in economic development, but in the real world, we often have to make it work in less-than-ideal conditions.

The Brown Huts on Trinity where Columbus Capital wanted to build an office complex.

In 2020, the Santa Fe-based real estate investment firm Columbus Capital bought the Brown Huts on Trinity. They had planned to build a modern office building, but they backed out when work-from-home happened. They’re pending purchase of 17 acres on North Mesa to build single-family homes. They also intend to buy the old Smith’s and surrounding properties. Their idea is to use it for warehousing LANL equipment until they can build retail and housing. That plan sounds great, but after Smith’s, Hilltop, Marriott, La Mesa Community, and other big developers, we have trust issues.

The 17-acre Sam Donaldson estate on North Mesa where Columbus Capital plans to be 85 single-family homes.

It’s hard to be assuaged by phrases like “ensuring the maximum return to shareholders“. I could appeal to your emotion and tell you how their leadership has connections to New Mexico and their vision is “that properties will expedite success and convenience for the people that work and reside in these communities”, but objectively, they’re batting zero so far on Los Alamos development. To their credit, they manage a number of properties in Santa Fe including Target, Whole Foods, office buildings, and apartments, but we’re not Santa Fe. We have a tough choice: oppose them and hope a better plan comes along, or support them and hope they won’t be just another land baron keeping rents at “government rate” and doing the bare minimum for small business and residential tenants.

One way you can get informed and involved is to attend the Sep 28 meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission when they will review the application for a Special Use Permit to use the Smith’s as a storage facility. Columbus Capital will have to show their plan “substantially conforms to the Comprehensive Plan“. The Comprehensive Plan is our County’s guiding document for things like encouraging economic development, providing more choices in housing, and improving the appearance of the community. If the permit is approved, Columbus Capital will probably buy the old Smith’s, the Mari Mac Shopping Center, and the remaining shop owners at 800 Trinity. You can also share your concerns and ideas with the Planning & Zoning Commission, Economic Development Administrator Dan Ungerleider, Senior Planner Sobia Sayeda, and County Council before then.

The Special Use Permit proposes to use the highlighted areas for storage with 3 1200 sq. ft. retail spaces in front.

In the grand scheme of things, it’s not about a Special Use Permit, but the quality of life for our community. We don’t want a warehouse there forever, but this might be the best opportunity to develop housing and retail there. A warehouse doesn’t meet the requirements for a Special Use Permit, but we can concede to give them a Special Use Permit if they give us some assurances in return. For example, we could impose penalty fines if they don’t meet milestone deadlines to develop housing and retail according to clearly-defined community requirements. We need to find ways to help Columbus Capital develop things to do and mixed-income housing so we can have cashiers, pizza cooks, X-ray techs, doctors, firemen, bus drivers, and lifeguards, and we don’t have to wait 7-10 years for it. I hope you’ll attend the P&Z meeting on Wed Sep 28 @ 5:30p and engage in the conversation.

TONIGHT Aug 9: Show Up And Tell Council Not To Approve Giving $17K To A Developer Who Didn’t Do Their Job

The $1.8M 6-parcel L-shaped lot given to Albuquerque developer TNJ Group LLC in exchange for building and operating a hotel & conference center.

Our future obligations? What about TNJ’s obligations to build and operate a hotel and conference center using the $1.8M OF LAND WE DONATED TO THEM IN 2019? This should be a cut & dry case where both parties walk away with lessons learned, no money exchanged. Instead, we are paying them because they failed at business.

The reason we are paying them off is to get out of the contract early, which would make sense if we had some immediate development opportunities in the works, but we don’t. But if we did, there’s plenty of local entrepreneurs that would be happy to not only buy the land at fair market value, but have honest commitment and sound business plans for developing our local economy.

Show up tonight @ 5:45pm @ Council Chambers 1000 Central Avenue and tell them that if TNJ wants our money, they should earn it by doing their job. Our economic development leadership will also be there if you want to ask them more questions about it.