You should really think about the rational response to a disincentive whenever you make a law. But we have politicians who neither care to, nor have the intellectual capacity to bother researching how these “feel good” laws will actually be reacted to in real life.
I have a friend who calls SF “the city of unintended consequences” for this exact reason, and now Colorado is importing their attitude.
In the meantime, those looking for work in Colorado, particularly for low paid work, will be able to find out whether they can make more per hour at one place than another.
This is the "intended consequences" and the slight impact on remote IT workers in Colorado is an unfortunate side-effect that is likely to be allieviated when the power of labor vs capital swings back towards labor, after 40 years of swinging in the other direction.
The way to fix this is by enacting similar laws everywhere else, not to go for the lowest common denominator on workers rights (or "feel good laws" as you refer to them here.) Somebody has always got to be the first to outlaw slavery.
I can’t even argue with someone who thinks so highly of some half-baked piece of local legislation that they’re comparing it to the 13th Amendment. Lol.
The 13th Amendment decidedly wasn't the first law banning slavery. In fact, it was preceded was a rather notable war between states that already had laws banning it and those that didn't.
You should really think about the rational response to a disincentive whenever you make a law. But we have politicians who neither care to, nor have the intellectual capacity to bother researching how these “feel good” laws will actually be reacted to in real life.
I have a friend who calls SF “the city of unintended consequences” for this exact reason, and now Colorado is importing their attitude.