"It's Business as Usual for Living-Wage Opponents" (Opinion, Dec. 8) does not address the most basic issue of all--who is going to pay for the added cost of subsidizing Los Angeles city and perhaps county contract services? The "recent UC Riverside study" referred to in the article does in fact identify increased costs for the city--$93 million annually, which is likely understated. The study goes on to assume that somehow small businesses, many minority-owned, that contract with the city will somehow absorb the cost.
The city of Los Angeles is already facing a $40-million budget deficit. So who is going to pay the added cost, the electorate? Not likely, based on the recent results of Prop. 218. Who is left to foot the bill? Los Angeles already has a reputation as one of the highest-cost areas for business in the country.