Hydroponic supply companies are considering initial public offerings. Image: Flickr / jpck / CC-BY

In 30 percent of the United States, medical marijuana is legal, to varying degrees. The industry surrounding medical marijuana can be a very profitable one. Now, two major marijuana industry companies have announced plans for initial public stock offerings.

Marijuana related industries

There are a variety of industries that have developed around medical marijuana. Businesses provide grow lights, humidifiers, fertilizers, processing equipment, packaging equipment, etc. Estimates say the marijuana industry could be worth $60 billion or more within 10 years. The technology sector of the industry is also continuing to grow. There are now “grow trailers” that can be controlled by smart phone apps, and hydroponic technology is improving every year. Many medical dispensaries and growth operations fund their expansion with short term loans in hopes of making big profits — and most do. Average markup for grow stores ranges between 70 and 120 percent of wholesale cost.

Initial public offerings planned

Companies that directly deal in marijuana exist in a difficult legal gray area. All marijuana is illegal on the federal level. On the state level, all recreational use of marijuana is illegal. Marijuana for medical use is legal in some states, but federal officials have raided state-compliant businesses in many states. Two companies — GrowOp Technology Ltd. and General Cannabis Inc. — both avoid this legal gray area by selling the technology and equipment, but not the actual substance. Both companies have indicated that by the end of 2011 they wish to be traded on public stock exchanges. These initial public offerings would raise more than $10 million for these businesses and allow individual investors to get in on a “growth” industry.

The problem with marijuana finances

The growth of medical marijuana has many investors hoping to get in on the action. This growth, however, could be creating another financial bubble. Since medical use was made legal in California in 1992, the price of finished product has dropped from $3,000 or more per pound to $1,800 per pound. Competition is fierce; warehouse-style operations such as WeGrow are franchising across many cities. Marijuana industry business owners are assuming that more states will continue allowing medical marijuana.

Source

24/7 Wall St

Debra Bowen - California Secretary of State (Photo: Joe Hall/Flickr/CC-BY)

Secretaries of State may not require a payday loan or a short term loan, as they can make from $180,000 to $190,000 or more annually. The United States Department of State, or State Department, is the first executive department to be established; it was created in 1789, led by the Secretary of State. A Secretary of State advises the president on foreign policy and diplomatic relations, analyzes and decides on treaties and agreements, manages foreign embassies and directs, coordinates and supervises the activities of the U.S. Government and its linkages overseas. The State Secretary is directly answerable to the U.S. president.

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen

In 2009, California had a population of  nearly 37 million. It is the most populous state in America. Its government is led by Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Debra Bowen is California’s 31st Secretary of State; she has been in office since Jan. 8, 2007. She won the position against then California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson on Nov. 2, 2006, making her only the sixth woman in history to be elected to a constitutional office with a statewide range of responsibility and power. As the incumbent California State Secretary, Bowen leads nearly 500 people under the California State Secretary office, advocating accessibility and transparency in business, elections, legislation, political campaigning and lobbying.

Legislative Bill AB 1624

Debra Bowen helped pass Legislative Bill AB 1624, which makes available to the public all information on the legislative assembly schedule. This includes pending matters on the floors of both Upper and Lower Chambers or Houses of the Legislature, bill analysis in connection to other bills, bill histories, statuses and vote information in each legislative session, veto on a statutory law (e.g. policy commanding or prohibiting something), the California State’s Constitution and other laws and statutes (i.e. all statutes made on or after Jan. 1, 1993).

Electronic voting systems

Long before the year 2000, when those running for state offices were required to post on the Internet their financial campaign reports, Debra Bowen had been the foremost Californian member of the Legislature to have already done so in 1995. As California’s Chief Elections Officer, she oversees elections on state and federal levels. To measure the extent of transparency and security in elections, she has been granted authority to review California’s electronic voting systems, approving Diebold Election Systems, Hart InterCivic and Sequoia Voting Systems and annulling the use of Election Systems and Software once the machines’ capability in securing votes were found incompetent.

The John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum awarded Bowen the Profile in Courage Award for commissioning an in-depth review of California’s electronic voting systems. Through California Business Portal, Bowen provides online variegated information on business entities and networking. She also manages the Victims of Corporate Fraud Compensation Fund, which is intended to compensate and restore a victim’s loss/losses incurred by corporate fraud.

Sources

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States

Proposition 8 has elicited strong, emotional reactions on both sides. Image: Flickr/ProCommKelly

UPDATE: Proposition 8 has been ruled unconstitutional. Proponents of Prop 8 have asked a judge to immediately stay the 136-page decision, which calls for the immediate voiding of the amendment.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker is slated to release his ruling today on Proposition 8. Prop 8 supporters have already sought a stay on the ruling if it is against them. Prop 8 opponents have vowed to appeal the ruling, should it go the other way. The things the ruling will affect range from civil rights to the California state budget.

The basics of Prop 8

In 2008, the California Marriage Protection Act, otherwise known as Prop 8, was passed by voters. The voter-added ballot proposition added a section to California law that stated that only marriage between a man and a woman is legal and recognized. When Proposition 8 passed, it overturned the California Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage. The campaign for Proposition 8 spent $39.9 million, while the campaign against Prop 8 spent $43.3 million.

The federal challenge to Proposition 8

The federal court challenge to Prop 8 has been argued in San Francisco. Perry v. Schwarzenegger was filed in federal court after the State Supreme Court upheld the voter initiative in Strauss v. Horton. Proponents of Proposition 8 argue that the amendment to the California constitution does not violate equal protection. Opponents to Proposition 8 are arguing that constitutional guarantee to equal protection is being violated.

The planned appeals to the Prop 8 decision

The reactions to the expected decision on Proposition 8 are already bubbling up. Supporters of Proposition 8 have filed an injunction, asking for a stay on marriage should the ruling be found against them. This would prevent further legal same-sex marriages from taking place while the case is under further legal review. Opponents to Proposition 8 have also said that if the ruling is against them, they intend to file further appeals. The millions of dollars spent on fighting Prop 8 in court are just the beginning, nationally. With a patchwork of same-sex marriage laws around the country, gay marriage is proving to be an economic boon for states that allow these legal unions.

Until legislators in the Sacramento capital building create a balanced budget, state employees may have their pay cut. Image from Flickr.

In the state of California, where a state budget has yet to be passed, state employees are facing a huge pay cut. The governor has asked that until a budget is passed, all employees have their pay cut to minimum wage. Some banks and credit unions are offering a quick payday to these employees, including no-interest installment payday loans.

The California pay cut

At the beginning of the California fiscal year on July 1, the state had passed no official budget. Without the budget in place, the state of California is facing a $19.1 billion budget deficit. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered that all 200,000 state employees have their wages reduced to minimum wage until a budget is passed. State Controller John Chiang issued a statement saying that worker wages cannot be reduced until the state budget system is completely overhauled — something that will take at least two years and several million dollars.

“Impasse” loans offered

Several large banks and small credit unions, including Wells Fargo and Bank of America, are offering no fax pay day loans called “budget impasse loans.” These loans are offered for no interest and no credit check. Instead, state employees are extended extra credit or cash money to make up the gap. When the state budget is passed, employees will be given a retroactive payment that they can use to pay off these impasse loans.

Qualifying for impasse loans

California state employees who need to get a personal loan to cover the budget impasse do not immediately qualify for these zero-interest loans. Instead, the state employees must already have an account with the bank or credit union. For many of the financial institutions, the state employee’s pay must also be deposited directly into his or her bank account. Given that California has only passed a balanced budget by the beginning of the fiscal year in 10 of the last 34 years, it is not surprising that many banks have created solutions to help employees that are left in the dust.

Roxanne, you don't have turn on the red ATM light or I'll be back… (Photo: Sloshspot)

California is in the middle of a titanic budget crisis, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken it upon himself to pummel any source of wasted funds into submission – including strip club ATMs. The Los Angeles Times reports that more than $12,000 designated for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, which is intended for welfare purposes, was withdrawn at various strip clubs across the state from 2007 to 2009. Among the strip clubs noted by name in this ongoing investigation are Sam’s Hofbrau, Seventh Veil and Star Strip, according to the California Department of Social Services.

Strip club welfare ATMs: When you need adult entertainment

The prospect of strip club ATMs being used in a less-than-responsible way by patrons with families to feed and clothe has prompted Schwarzenegger to terminate strip club locations from the list of approved locations where welfare recipients can withdraw emergency money. According to the Times, more than half of casinos and state-licensed poker rooms in California permit welfare recipients to access their quick TANF payday. Department of Social Services spokeswoman Lizelda Lopez said that “common sense” will be used to re-evaluate where emergency welfare cash advance funds should or should not be withdrawn.

Strip club managers ‘shocked,’ were unaware of ATM usage

Strip club managers who were willing to submit to interviews claim that they had no way of knowing that the strip club ATMs were welfare approved. The third-party machines were provided via a California state contract with the Quest ATM network, although as Star Strip manager Joey Mancini put it, no Quest sticker indicating welfare emergency money status was affixed to his strip club’s ATM. Nevertheless, Mancini insists that California officials “must be wrong” about the $1,265 in TANF emergency cash advance funds taken from his machine.

Smile when you say that, Mr. Mancini. Gov. Schwarzenegger is watching.

Sources:

Los Angeles Times

To save or not to save, that is the question…

AB 377 will require customers to sign additional disclosures to get payday loans. Image from Flickr.

In California, a new assembly bill — AB 377 — is working its way through the legislature. The AB 377 bill is intended to reform payday lending laws in California and has provisions that both expand and regulate the payday lending industry in the state.

California AB 377 creates new limitations

AB 377, a bill originally introduced by assemblyman Tony Mendoza, creates new limitations on payday lending. First, AB 377 implements a 2008 recommendation from California’s Department of Corporations. Consumer disclosures will be required to contain “explicit information regarding the actual costs of payday loans.” AB 377 will also require a 24-hour “cooling off” period when a customer can return the loan with no penalties. AB 377 will also require online payday lenders to provide additional notices and disclosures.

AB 377 increases lending limits

Currently in California, loans from payday loan stores are limited to $300. AB 377 will raise that lending cap to $500. Raising the cap is a measure intended to bring the California regulations on payday lending more in line with California’s cost of living. This increased lending limit also comes with a limit of 15 percent interest on the amount of the check advance. AB 377 also brings more income into the California budget with a 5-cent tax on each payday loan transaction.

Responsible borrowing and lending

AB 377 has been amended three times as it makes its way through the legislature. In 2006, about 10 million payday loans were taken out in California. AB 377 is a major payday lending reform that will, in general, encourage responsible lending and borrowing. By giving customers more information and more rights, AB 377 protects the consumer. By allowing payday lending businesses to place a higher cap on lending amounts, the bill allows a service that millions of Californians use every year to be more flexible in meeting their customer’s needs. Read the full text of AB 377 here.

If passed, the California act would legalize and tax recreational marijuana. Image from Flickr.

Yesterday evening, the California Secretary of State confirmed that the voter initiative to legalize marijuana received an estimated 523,531 valid signatures – well more than the 433,971 signatures needed to get on the November ballot. The California legalization initiative has supporters that argue pot legalization will not only save the cash-strapped California economy money, but will bring in the instant cash of tax revenue. Some detractors of the bill argue that legalizing the drug will lead to an increase in crime and health impacts. Other detractors worry that legalizing gray-market marijuana will decrease the quality of marijuana and significantly harm the budding marijuana industry. Part 1 of this article covers the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act in California and the arguments for its passage. Part 2: Arguments against Marijuana Legalization in California covers the arguments against marijuana legalization in California.

History of marijuana legalization in California

In 1913, the first state law criminalizing marijuana in the United States was passed in California. Other states quickly followed suit. By 1937, federal law made possession or transfer of “Marihuana” illegal for everything except medical and industrial uses.

This act was declared unconstitutional in 1969, but the U.S. Federal government included marijuana in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. In 1996, California legalized medical marijuana with Proposition 215, reigniting a national debate. On the federal level, marijuana remains an illegal Schedule I narcotic considered to have “no valid medical use.”

The California marijuana legalization measure

The California voter initiative to legalize pot, known as the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act lays out several limitations on the legal use of marijuana. The initiative would allow anyone 21 or older to “possess, cultivate or transport marijuana for personal use.” Local governments throughout California would have the ability to tax and regulate commercial production or sale of marijuana. Individuals would also be prohibited from smoking marijuana in public, smoking marijuana while minors are present, providing to any underage person, possessing the drug on school grounds or driving while under the influence of marijuana.

The cost-savings argument for marijuana legalization

Supporters of the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act argue that the legalization of marijuana would save the State of California a significant amount of money. California is currently in a huge budget deficit, and has been using payday cash advances on the state budget to cover costs.

Estimates for these savings range from $156 million to $1 billion. Supporters claim that once the already-stretched-thin law-enforcement system stops prosecuting individuals for growing, possessing or selling marijuana they can focus on crimes and criminals that are more violent or dangerous. Proponents also point out that while very few deaths in California can be attributed to marijuana, alcohol contributes to hundreds of deaths each year.

The taxation argument for cannabis legalization

In addition to saving the state of California millions of dollars in law enforcement, the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act also gives local governments the ability to tax marijuana. Proponents of the act estimate that $15 billion worth of gray-market and black market marijuana is sold each year in California.

An excise tax on the retail sales of marijuana would bring in an estimated $1.3 billion a year or more in revenue. Some counties and cities within California currently tax medical marijuana dispensaries. These city and county taxes bring in as much as $350,000 per dispensary.

The jobs argument for legalizing pot

Some areas of California, such as Humboldt County, already have a thriving marijuana tourism industry. With services from medical marijuana dispensaries to schools focused on how to grow marijuana, the area brings in several million dollars a year in tourism revenue. Supporters of legalizing cannabis point out that if the marijuana tourism industry in California grows to just one-third the size of the wine industry, it would create more than 50,000 jobs. If marijuana were legalized, it would also become legal to produce hemp in the state, which could add to the agricultural base of California.

California’s Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act is due to go on the November ballot. To see the arguments against the legalization of marijuana in California, see Part 2: Arguments against Marijuana Legalization in California.

Sources:

Business Week
Seattle Times
Time Magazine
CNN
California NORML

Opponents of the California marijuana legalization measure would prefer that crops such as this were not legal. Image from Flickr.

California’s Secretary of State has certified that the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis act in California has received enough voter signatures to be considered on the ballot in November. To see a full rundown of the voter initiative and arguments for marijuana legalization, see The California Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act: Part 1. While polls show a 59 percent majority of California voters have decided do support the marijuana legalization measure, there are detractors of the voter initiative that say the tax pay day is not worth the problems the act will create. These opponents fall into two major camps – those who believe the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis will cause medical or crime problems, and those who believe it will hurt the quality of marijuana.

The medical argument against legalizing cannabis

While the medical uses of marijuana are under debate, many doctors agree there are some medical uses for the drug. However, the legalization of recreational use could lead to many negative health effects.

Marijuana is mainly ingested through smoking, and the smoking of any substance, especially long-term, can seriously damage a person’s lungs. It has also been shown that frequent heavy use of marijuana can permanently impair short-term memory and reaction time. These opponents argue that legalized recreational marijuana would increase the use of marijuana, which would be a danger to public health.

The crime argument against marijuana legalization

The California Peace Officers Association, among many others, has spoken out against the initiative intended to legalize marijuana. John Lovell, who lobbies for the association went on record against the bill, saying “We have enough problems with alcohol and abuse of pharmaceutical products. Do we really need to add yet another mind-altering substance to the array?”

Detractors also point out that, no matter what California voters pass, marijuana remains a Schedule I illegal substance, federally. Federal law enforcement officials have not been prosecuting small medical marijuana dispensaries or users, but large-scale production and distribution still remains a serious federal crime. If marijuana were to be legalized in California, it could draw organized crime and drug cartels to the state.

The quality argument against legalizing pot

While many marijuana smokers and growers usually stand at odds against those who want to keep marijuana illegal, a small coalition is emerging. In Humboldt County, many growers and distributors of gray or black market marijuana fear that legalized pot could be economically and socially damaging. Economically, growers fear that legalized marijuana would significantly reduce the sales price of their cash crop. This would put their livelihood and the economic base of much of Humboldt county at risk, sending many of them to credit counseling. Additionally, many growers are concerned that if marijuana does become legal, large corporations would move into the market. Like many other small-scale growers in America, the growers would be forced to compete against agribusinesses, which could drive up the cost while driving down the price of their crops.

There are many arguments both for and against the passage of California’s Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis act. The debate about legalization has been raging for over a hundred years, and when California voters go to the polls in November, the result will be closely watched and hotly debated for a long time to come.

Sources:

Business Week
Seattle Times
Time Magazine
CNN
California NORML

Image from Wikimedia Commons.

The California Safety Committee today passed AB 390, a bill that would legalize, tax and regulate marijuana. AB 390 passed 4-3, and now it goes to the health committee. AB 390 calls for regulations similar to those placed on alcohol, and it would legalize marijuana for personal recreational use.

California has had gigantic budget problems, and when the news was first released that the state had a huge budget gap, many people suggested that if marijuana were taxed in California it would help decrease California’s tax debt.

Marijuana to go up for a vote

Most sources appear pretty certain that AB 390 will get killed at some point in the process, maybe even very soon in health committee. However, in the November election, California will put the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 up to a statewide vote. California voters will have the opportunity to legalize marijuana for recreational use and become the first state to do so.

People argue that legalizing marijuana would help the state’s budget as well as decrease crime and weaken drug cartels. Others argue that marijuana is too dangerous to be legalized. There are also a lot of arguments about whether regulating it would be feasible because marijuana is easy to grow.

Marijuana money

An article from Time Magazine says that marijuana is California’s biggest cash crop, and statewide sales are estimated to be about $14 billion per year. The same article says California could make $1.3 billion in taxes if AB 390 or a similar bill is passed.

Medical marijuana has been legal in California since 1996, and the state currently collects taxes on about $200 million per year in medical marijuana sales. On a federal level, the Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske had a reputation for letting marijuana possession slide and not prosecuting people for it when he was police chief in Seattle, Wash., so it might not be long before we see changes in federal marijuana law.

Image from Flickr.

The lawsuit against Proposition 8 — legislation in California that changed the state Constitution to make same-sex marriage illegal — has started. It’s not just the controversial subject matter that is getting people riled up, either. The case was set to be streamed on YouTube, but the defender for Prop 8 blocked the motion to allow the public to watch at the last minute.

Prop 8 campaign attorneys said that their clients would face harassment if people knew they were opposed to same-sex marriage. Everyone involved in this trial should probably get comfortable, and lawyers on both sides will be seeing a big pay day, as this trial will likely last a very long time.

The prosecution

On one side of the Prop 8 trial, the lawsuit states that California’s ban on same-sex marriage violates U.S. constitutional rights of equal protection and due process. Two couples — Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo — are suing because, they say “We and our relationships should be treated equally under the law. Our goal is to advance the cause of equality for all Americans, which is the promise that makes this nation so great.”

“Prop 8 used children in their campaign; Protect the Children. … It’s so insulting … to say that my marriage to [Jeff] means a child would be harmed. You put my nieces and nephews– [chokes up] they will tell you they don’t need protection from me or Jeff,” said Paul Katami, who has been in a relationship with Jeff Zarrillofor nine years.

The defense

On the other side, Charles Cooper, the lead attorney for the Prop 8 trial defense, says 14 million voters in California support “traditional” marriage. Cooper’s says the “basis of marriage is procreation,” and that same-sex marriage constitutes a “de-institutionalization” of marriage. He also argues that same-sex marriage is threatening to children.

“The de-institutionalization of marriage has caused a decline of marriage. … Marriage as a pro-child social institution is weakened. We believe, evidence will show, and testimony will show that that finding of fact will follow,” said Cooper.

Image from Picasa.

Always a trailblazer for green policies, California today approved a policy that will put in place efficiency regulations for televisions. These regulations have become necessary thanks to liquid-crystal display and plasma high-definition TVs, which use more than three times as much power as their old-fashioned counterparts.

Energy standards have been put in place regarding large appliances such as refrigerators and air conditioners since the 1970s. California is the first state to pass efficiency regulations for televisions. However, while I think it’s a good idea to create policies that apply to public utilities, I see one flaw in California’s new policy: It applies only to TVs that are 58 inches or smaller.

Once again, rules don’t apply to the rich

All payday loan lenders in California have to follow the same regulations; why don’t all individuals have to follow the same energy consumption rules? To me, it seems as though the state is saying that if you have enough money to afford a huge big-screen TV, the rules don’t apply to  you.

I understand that the reason for the cutoff is that it’s impossible to make 60-inch plasma TVs that would fit the energy standards. However, if California is already placing restrictions on the types of TVs people can buy, why make the exception? Why is it OK for people to use inefficient televisions just because they are huge?

Hollywood hoarders

If this energy policy were to be put into effect somewhere else, it might not matter that super-huge TVs were exempt from the ban. However, there are a whole lot of people who can afford 60 and 72 and 100-inch televisions in California. Hollywood, Beverly Hills and Orange County in general are already crawling with them, just to name a few areas.

Placing the cutoff was likely the result of a compromise with electronics trade groups, which fought against the policy. They are the ones directly affected by the regulations because the law states they can’t sell energy gobbling TVs in the state. The rules don’t say anything about what types of televisions people are allowed to own. Televisions that Californians already own or purchase between now and when the policy goes into effect aren’t subject to the regulations. The standards will be enforced for retailers starting in 2011.

Better than nothing?

The L.A. Times says that the regulations will be a big help in conserving energy in California:

The energy commission estimates that switching to more efficient TVs would save an average of $30 per set per year and $8.1 billion in electricity bills statewide over the first decade. Moving to more efficient televisions would eliminate the need to build at least one large, gas-fired electric power plant, the energy commission says.

Clearly California regulators have done their homework, and the standards will be helpful in their state. I think switching to more energy efficient appliances is always a good idea. It helps the public as well as individuals. However, I dislike the fact that this policy implies what so many people don’t want to believe is true: If you  have enough money, you don’t have to follow the rules.

Since July 24, 2009, the federal minimum wage has been $7.25 per hour. That means in every state in the United States, employers must pay workers at least $7.25 per hour. In Washington, D.C., it means employers must pay $8.25 per hour because the law there dictates they must pay $1 more than minimum wage.

The $7.25 federal minimum wage amounts to about $1,200 per month — before taxes. Taxes account for an average of 24 percent, depending on the area, which leaves the federal minimum wage earner with less than $1,000 per months to take home. Of course, that’s only for people who work 40 hours per week. It’s no wonder so many families end up needing faxless payday loans to help them get by.

How low can you go?

Despite the fact that the federal minimum wage is not a living wage for anyone who pays rent, some states such as Colorado want to pay less than the federal minimum wage. Colorado, which bases its minimum wage on inflation, says it wants to lower its minimum wage to $7.24 an hour. Of course, it can’t legally do that, but it speaks volumes about the economy.

Many states already have minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wage, and in states where the minimum wage is based on inflation, it could mean the workers in those states would take pay cuts if the state minimum wage is lowered. The idea of a lower minimum wage is especially catastrophic now, when so many unemployed workers are being forced to take low-paying jobs. More people are struggling to get by on minimum wage, so that many more people would be affected if states lower their minimum wages.

When employers don’t pay federal minimum wage

Lucky for Colorado workers and any other states contemplating lowering their minimum wage, they can’t. Furthermore, businesses who try to skirt the federal minimum wage face stiff penalties, as a couple of businesses recently found out.

Southern California Maid Service and Carpet Cleaning Inc. must pay employees $3.5 million in back wages by Nov. 12, a judge ruled today. The owners also spent five days in jail. A site called 7th Space reports:

The owners of a Southland residential cleaning service were taken into custody and later released after failing to comply with a court order directing payment of $3.5 million in back wages, plus interest, fines and liquidated damages to at least 385 workers.

Lost in translation

The owners of Tasty Buffet in Memphis also are being fined for failing to pay workers minimum wage. The fine has doubled to $459,658 after the owners failed to pay the original fine.

The owners are contesting this, saying they provided food and lodging as well as wages for many employees. They also say they didn’t understand the labor laws.

Federal minimum wage exceptions

It is true that in certain cases employers don’t have to pay the federal minimum wage. For example, employers aren’t required to pay commissioned sales employees the federal minimum wage.  Other exemptions include companions for the elderly, workers with disabilities, newspaper deliverers, farm workers and fishermen.

In some states, food service workers who make tips also are paid less than the federal minimum wage, though that is becoming less common.

Laura Gambucci and a client | Image from San Diego Magazine

Fashion Boutiques are a dime a dozen in La Jolla, and in California as a whole, but the name “Laura Gambucci” has managed to perk up a few ears in the fashion world. Her customers rave about her selection, clothing that can’t be found at other boutiques in the San Diego area.

Laura Gambucci, a former interior designer, gets many of the pieces in her store from Los Angeles. SoCalBeachMag.com reports that Laura Gambucci travels the whole country in search of the best clothing, including items from the runways in New York. Customers also appreciate the way her store is organized, with clothing arranged according to trend.

Not your average clothing store

As you can probably guess from the phrase “fashion boutique” as opposed to “clothing store,” Laura Gambucci’s clothes are pricey. If you have the money and are willing to spend it on clothing, Laura Gambucci caters to big spenders who are fashion conscious. I’d never recommend taking out short term loans to buy expensive clothes, but everyone has got their priorities.

Clothes are a definite necessity, obviously, but you can get clothing for much cheaper than the prices Laura Gambucci offers at her boutique. However, some people argue that buying high-quality clothing is worth it because it lasts longer. Another benefit there is that it creates less waste. Clothing can be used and reused, but eventually it does end up in the trash. The longer it lasts, the better.

Classic but cool

Looking at photos from the Laura Gambucci boutique, I see a lot of simple, classic styles with just a bit of an edge or a little flare. This isn’t a boutique for people who are trying to get attention. Rather, Laura Gambucci targets shopper who want to look elegant and casual at the same time.

Of course, there are also plenty of accessories. More than half the store is dedicated to belts, purses, shoes and jewelry.

Location, location, location

Laura Gambucci in La Jolla, California, is located at 7629 Girard Ave. Self-proclaimed perfectionist Laura Gambucci has said in the past that she didn’t want to grow to much too fast because she wanted to be able to “manage and do everything as perfect as possible.”

It was a couple of years ago that she said that, and I am hoping that she’s ready now for her popularity to skyrocket, as her name is definitely out there now. Fashionistas across the country are googling her, and though you can’t buy her clothing online yet, I am sure those spendy shoppers will be sure to visit if they’re ever in the area.

As far as I can tell, the Laura Gambucci boutique doesn’t even have its own web site. Hey, there’s a business idea for you if you are a web developer in Southern California. With all the extra money Laura Gambucci will be making thanks to this new wave of press, I’m sure she’d be happy to have a great online presence, and maybe she will pay you to do it!

California company Tanimura & Antle Inc. has recalled a batch of romaine lettuce after the Department of Agriculture found lettuce in Wisconsin that was contaminated with salmonella.

Agriculture industry news blog The Packer reports:

The traceback was swift because of the Tanimura & Antle’s use of technology. … The cartons of bulk and wrapped lettuce have the lot code 531380, and the lettuce was harvested June 25 to July 2. The company shipped the romaine to retail, foodservice and wholesale customers.

29 states affected by recall

Portions of the possibly contaminated lot, which was past its shelf life at the time of the recall, were shipped to 29 states as well as Canada and Puerto Rico. Are you ready for the list of states? Here it is:

Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Product recalls are always expensive, so Tanimura & Antle might need a small loan to recover from this. Luckily, no illnesses have been reported. The salmonella was found as the result of a random Department of Agriculture test.

Random test finds salmonella?

I don’t know about you, but the fact that a totally random test turned up salmonella poisoning makes me a little nervous. If the Department of Agriculture randomly discovered that the company had to issue a romaine lettuce recall, how much contaminated food is out there?

Then again, if there is a lot of contaminated food out there but no one knows, that must mean it isn’t really hurting anybody, right? If everything is business as usual, I suppose there’s no use worrying. I’m not going to just quit eating vegetables.

About Tanimura & Antle

The company that issued the romaine lettuce recall is one of the largest lettuce growers and distributors in the United States. Tanimura & Antle publicized the lettuce recall on the company web site. In a press release regarding the romaine lettuce recall, the company said it is exercising “an abundance of caution.” CEO Rick Antle said:

“We will continue to review opportunities for improvement. Although the recalled product is well beyond the 14-16 day shelf life, we are voluntarily issuing this recall because we want to ensure that we minimize even the slightest risk to public health.”

The company also stressed that no other produce grown or distributed by Tanimura & Antle is affected by this recall.

Payday loan stores are common targets for robberies in the United States. Businesses that give out cash advances and payday loans are becoming targets more frequently as criminals are becoming wise to the fact that they keep large amounts of cash on hand.

The latest report of a payday loan store robbery comes out of Jackson, Mississippi. MLive.com reports all the details of the recent robbery:

A man carrying a handgun robbed Allied Cash Advance, 1194 N. West Ave., around 12:30 p.m. Tuesday.
The Jackson Police Department said the man fled the store in an unknown direction with an undisclosed amount of money.

Police attempted to set up a perimeter and to track the suspect with the K-9 unit, but were unsuccessful.
No employees of the payday loan business were injured.
The suspect is described as white, approximately 5 feet 6 inches tall, 180 pounds and wearing a dark blue windbreaker jacket, black shirt, black pants and black baseball hat.
Anyone with information is asked to contact Jackson police at 788-4100 or the TIP line at 787-0212.

More payday loan store robberies

June has been a  popular month for payday loan store robberies. June 11 a payday loan store in South Carolina was the target. Two men walked into a Quick Cash Advance in Longs that day and robbed it at gunpoint, according to Horry County Police.

The store at 3373 Hwy. 9 was hit shortly before 2 p.m. on June 11. Witnesses said two men, one of whom was armed with a handgun, entered the store and demanded money from the clerk. The suspects fled with an undisclosed amount of cash. That’s usually how payday loan store robberies go. However, just a few days before the South Carolina robbery, a robbery in California took an unusual turn.

Lake Forest, California

That’s where this whole episode went down: Lake Forest in Orange County, California, at a store called PayDay Loan. The robber, in traditional robber style, entered the building, pointed the gun and demanded the money.

Only the store had a silent alarm system, and the cops were on their way. This is where the story gets interesting.

Wrong place, wrong time

The police arrived just as the robber was leaving, and rather than surrender to the inevitable, he decided to involve an innocent bystander. He grabbed a 61-year-old male customer, forced him into his SUV at gunpoint and sped off with the man and the cash.

Police followed, and the robber proceeded to lead the police on a high-speed chase that at times reached speeds of 120 mph. Schools were put on lockdown, as police and suspects sped from on the freeway and around Laguna Hills and Laguna Niguel. The chase lasted about three miles.

Under arrest

Of course, the chase had to end some time. When it did, the police freed the unharmed hostage and arrested the suspect. They recovered the cash, they took the gun and they continued with the business of keeping Orange County safe.

The moral of this story is that payday loan stores and any other frequently targeted establishment should definitely invest in one of those silent alarm systems. Payday loan stores often get targeted by robbers because they keep a large amount of cash on hand. Anything you can do to get police officers on the scene before the robber is off the scene will help deter future criminals from endangering employees and customers again.