EDITORIAL NO WAY OUT EITHER WAY IT TURNS, PUBLIC PAYS FOR 'LIVING WAGE'.

IF you sneezed, you might have missed the vote Wednesday by the Los Angeles City Council giving final approval to the revised "living-wage" ordinance.

No one commented before the 10-3 vote. There was no point. Everything to be said about the discriminatory ordinance had already been said in the many, many public debates on the topic. And so one of the worst policy decisions that the city's elected leaders could have pursued came to be.

Next step, no doubt, is a court fight.

Business groups have said they will file a lawsuit blocking the measure that requires a handful of hotels along Century Boulevard to pay a wage above and beyond the state's minimum. What the council passed on Wednesday was a revised version of the ordinance that was supposed to appease the hotels with millions in taxpayer giveaways to help offset the new cost.

It didn't work.

But whatever happens at a trial, the taxpayers of Los Angeles will be the losers.

If the ordinance prevails, it's only a matter of time until emboldened city officials think about applying this anti-business formula to the rest of the city. If workers at hotels adjacent to Los Angeles International Airport deserve $10.64 an hour, then why not workers at any job in the city? Surely, a burger slinger at McDonald's works as hard as a maid at the Hilton. And surely fast-food businesses also benefit from their proximity to city-owned property, like roads.

Indeed, the net result of this living-wage ordinance will likely be fewer jobs in L.A. at any wage -- "living" or otherwise. Taxpayers will also have to pay for the subsidies the council included in the deal in its failed attempt to win over the hotels.

And even if the hotels prevail, the public still loses. Guess who gets to pay the court costs?

For Angelenos, it's a classic lose-lose situation.