On his weekly radio show, Bloomberg and his commissioner for homeless services warned about the impacts of proposed cuts from Albany.

"This will cause the shelter system to back up. We may have to build 70 new shelters thorough the city," [Comissioner Seth] Diamond said, putting the cost to the city at $80 million dollars.

But minutes after touting the benefits of helping the homeless transition into jobs and homes, the mayor slammed a proposal to force developers who receive city subsidies to pay workers a so-called living wage, which many peg at at least $10 an hour — significantly higher than minimum wage.

"When government tries to get involved and force the economics to something that the market won't tolerate, it's the Soviet Union. That didn't work out very well in case you haven't read your history recently," he said.

Labor operative Dan Morris piles on, emailing me to say Bloomberg, "supports government intervention into the market when it means large tax breaks and subsidies for large companies and developers."

In short, they suggest there's something inconsistent: supporting the government when they help people get out of poverty, but opposing the government when they mandate the private sector do likewise.

Morris said after an adjustment was made for small businesses, the economic argument against the bill crumbled.

Here's the interview, via Gchat:

me: what was tweaked with the bill from when it was first introduced?

Dan Morris: carve outs for small business, basically... since small business is always the sticking point when workplace standards and standard-related issues arise and businesses think it's a cost or a burden

me: what about bloomberg's reported opposition to the bill, how problematic will that be?
 
Dan Morris: but what we've seen in san francisco is that the policy has benefited both workers and businesses and it's not been a burden at all... in fact, top business leaders at the chamber of commerce out there in SF are on record with the Wall Street Journal and other outlets saying this haven't seen that specific opposition lately, actually... it's been all about business...but the bill has veto-proof support in the council right now.

me: who in the council flipped, after the bill was tweaked?
 
Dan Morris: and what we've tried to do at DMI is take the opposition at their word and examine whether the policy will harm business... no evidence suggests that it will. I can't speak to the specific council politics of it, since we just handle the policy side of things but can say that when you look at the evidence and data it's clear that this is just smart policy, regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, so it makes sense that support would have grown in recent months
 
me: is this gchat format too fast for you?
 
Dan: more and more data and evidence has come out from us and other nonpartisan organizations showing that it works...not too fast but i'm a flack at a wonk shop so i like to give longer answers not just sound bite-y spin
 
me: boo long answers!
 
Dan Morris: hence the slight delay in response to some questions. no, in-depth and comprehensive is fun!! :)

me: so who spearheaded the tweaking of this bill? (i want a lengthy answer!)

Dan Morris: ha, i thought i already said i can only speak to the policy and data and evidence... let the politicos talk politics... but even with the carve outs it's still a good bill and will deliver tremendous benefits for working people businesses and the city as a whole
 
me: so on message what's the next policy fight coming up for DMI ?

Dan Morris: hold on WNYC just called.