General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSorry... a $15 minimum wage is too high
The depreciation of the minimum wage from its high point in 1968 is scandalous. If merely adjusted to inflation that $1.60 of 1968 would be worth $10.95 today.
We've built too much of the economy around the exploitation of these MW workers... and all those who fall between $7.25 and that $10.95. If the MW had merely been adjusted to inflation every year the economy would have had time to adjust. Instead the economy has become addicted to this exploitation... and no doubt this has played a huge role in how the the bottom quintile's share of national aggregate income has gone down 28% since 1974 while the top quintile has gone up 32%.
That being said, $15 may be fine in urban areas but as a national MW $15 would cause enormous disruptions... especially since we've foolishly allowed US companies to outsource and bring back their good from cheap labor nations. And yes, moving to even that $10.95 will cause disruptions. This adjustment alone would mean a whopping $7300 a year more for a full time MW worker. But there's a strong moral case that this is a wrong that must be corrected. A caveat, that perhaps if we went to Single Payer, this would free up employer resources to justify a MW higher than $10.95.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
revbones
(3,660 posts)
merrily
(45,251 posts)
daleanime
(17,796 posts)true.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)How does advocating for a return to the highest MW we've ever had... now $7300 more a year, make me a GOPer?
My point is while it's easy to just decree $15... it's not a free lunch as some seem to believe.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Paying someone a living wage in exchange for production isn't a "free lunch", it's actually the exact opposite of a "free lunch". What a "free lunch" entails is allowing employers pay employees so little that the government has to subsidize their existence.
So while advocating for predatory employment compensation practices doesn't necessarily make you a GOPer, it's certainly a great start.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)We're not going to get rid of supply and demand as a force in wages... short of moving to a guaranteed national income. But we can set the boundaries in which those forces operate with a MW and reversing free trade.
Getting back to the HIGHEST level the MW has ever been is hardly advocating for predatory employment. What Reagan did to the MW is advocating predatory employment when the MW was left to depreciate down to $6.38 inflation adjusted to $2015 dollars.
http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/minimum-wage-since-1938/
The federal MW is simply THE FLOOR for the national wage. No one said it could not go higher in states or cities... or that it can't increase in real terms. What I object to is the idea that we can wave a magic wand and there won't be any disruptions to the economy if we go to $15... 208% ABOVE the current MW and 37% higher than the MW has EVER been.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)For one thing, paying someone the minimum wage is and always has been predatory. The only thing the minimum wage does is make it less so. So arguing that the least predatory minimum wage the US has ever had isn't still predatory is pretty silly. The US government subsidizes the poor at levels well above poverty thresholds, and even a $15 minimum wage doesn't raise many of them out of that.
The other obvious dog whistle you are blowing is the unsupported claim that "a national MW $15 would cause enormous disruptions". The states that have already raised their minimum wage have experienced more economic growth and employment than those who haven't. So while it may be true that there is a mandatory minimum wage at which economic growth and employment will experience diminishing returns, claiming an arbitrary $15 point at which "enormous disruptions" happen as factual with zero basis in fact to support such an assertion is quite telling.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)If you can't make a point without gross distortions... you really haven't made a point. Have you?
There is NO STATE according to
http://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-tracker/#/min_wage/Washington%20D.C.
that today has a MW higher than $10.50... and that's not even a state, it's DC.
I LIVE in MA which now is the highest MW state, tied with CA. This is still BELOW that $11ish that represents the inflation adjusted 1968 MW.
So to claim that states that have raised the MW are doing better than those that have not... as an argument that my call for at least $11 is in favor of predatory employment is laughable. I await your condemnation of all those blue states you just touted as encouraging predatory employment. But I suspect you'll give them a pass.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I'm sure you must think your bullshit isn't completely transparent, but I can assure you it isn't. It's not as if you are the first person who has logged onto DU and in less than a week starts to carry the Heritage Foundation's water.
Just like last time I will use your exact quotes, but just so you can't employ obvious half-fast obfuscation, I will keep it much simpler.
"...as a national MW $15 would cause enormous disruptions"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7730765
Now I'm sure you had no problem finding proof of this on Heritage.org, but this side of Bizzaro World, not so much.
So you can certainly claim that states raising the minimum wage to a lower level is exactly like forecasting financial armageddon if the minimum wage is raised to $15, but that level of bullshit just isn't going to fly here like it no doubt does in your usual haunts.
Just sayin'
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)So it seems ALL of your arguments to date are to accuse me of being a right winger and evading real rebuttals while rushing to find some new attack.
I await your personal attacks against all who agree with me.
I think this discussion has gone as far as it can.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I just posted your own assertion verbatim and you're predictably running away from it again.
Nobody here is buying what you are selling.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)YOU are the one who responded to my OP with the accusation that
So while advocating for predatory employment compensation practices doesn't necessarily make you a GOPer, it's certainly a great start.
So let's see YOU back that up.
So if advocating for a national MW of at least $11... 38% ABOVE the current NW... and still BELOW what Obama has proposed.... is "advocating for predatory employment compensation practices" then I await your condemnation of Obama and all the other people on this board who think $15 is inappropriate as the BASE of the national wage. Oh... you seem to believe that DU is unanimous for your position.
$15 is fine for those area that can afford it. But we're talking about a minimum for the ENTIRE NATION. Feel free to wave your magic wand. And since it's other people's money why not go for $25.
Talk is cheap... so thanks for your 2c.
Lancero
(3,015 posts)When you start throwing around their free lunch ideaology about minimum wage increases.
And then go and double down on it with a Foxian 'well, why not raise it to *insert much higher number here*!'
Perhaps he was incorrect in his comments, but your usage of RW arguments and Fox commentary does nothing to disprove him.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Sorry... my common sense just doesn't let me go along with "free lunch" promises... coming from the left or right.
From the right.. tax cuts... especially for the rich, are a free lunch because IN THEORY they create a wondrous expansion of the economy which everyone benefits from... and this will create a revenue boom.
Ya right. Individual income tax returns in constant dollars never exceeded Clinton's last year in ANY of Bush's 8 years.
And so when I hear that raising the MW to 38% higher than it's ever been... 208% higher than it's now... will cause no problems because business owners will simply make it all back with more business... it sounds like economic perpetual motion: ie a free lunch.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"it's not a free lunch as some seem to believe..."
Who, specifically?
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Who thinks it's a free lunch? Those who think they can wave a magic wand and there will be no disruptions to the economy. I've heard the free lunch arguments... that a business can pay the $15 and they'll just get more business to make up for it. It reminds me of the Orwellian Right's free lunch arguments for irresponsible tax cuts.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)So... little more than an un-named, unknown, unspecified group of people you are unable to objectively cite-- most likely because your allegation is just that-- an allegation used to supply an absurd premise no one else will offer that you can argue against.
Clever. Not accurate at all, but clever. It reminds me of the the Bugs Bunny half-wits irresponsibly making things up.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I'm advocating for a MW that historically we KNOW did not cause unemployment nor inflation. But let's not forget that in 1968 we had a protectionist economy.
The burden of proof is on those who want to go to $15 nationally... 38% ABOVE the highest the MW has ever been... and 207% above what it is today.
http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/minimum-wage-since-1938/
The idea that $15 can be declared a "living wage" for a big city is one thing. It's quite another to say that's a living wage for all parts of the nation. So will $15 be excessive in a depressed or rural areas of other states? And just who's it a living wage for? A single person? An adult with a child? Two children?
$15 is an arbitrary number.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)/ignore list.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Another content-free drive by attack... no, make that a hit and run since you're evading any rebuttal.
yuiyoshida
(41,867 posts)This will not end well.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Really?
I think the bigger problem here is some are blinded by the concept of a "living wage"... it's one of those terms that contains it's own argument... because anything BELOW $15 automatically becomes a "non-living" wage. But that $15 an hour movement began in BIG CITIES. So while it might be a living wage there... it's a massive windfall for that kid in East Bumcake who lives at home. Do you really think anyone's going to pay him $31k a year to sweep a floor or clean toilets?
We're talking about the NATIONAL MW... and it has to make sense everywhere. If states or cities want to go higher... fine.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Here I am advocating for $11 as a national minimum and to let cities and states raise it to whatever they want... and I'm called a GOPer?
Go figure.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)One who admires Reagan!
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)
pnwmom
(109,000 posts)And Democrats don't uniformly support every one of Bernie's proposals.
The progressive economist whose research first proved that raising minimum wage doesn't cause employers to shed jobs says that is true only if the amount isn't raised too high. And he says that optimal amount -- nationally -- would be $12. States and cities should be free to raise it to $15 or even higher, but the research supports only a raise to $12 nationally.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)And he doesn't accept all of mine. I'm for finally making the US into a true democratic system... and I know Bernie won't touch the topic.
Parties, or perhaps wings of parties, develop narratives to in response to the groups that make up the coalition. Narratives change all the time. Once liberal Dems were against the Bush tax cuts because they increased debt and that threatened Social Security if that debt made SS payback more difficult. But then most liberal Dems embraced Obama's position when he wanted to keep most of those irresponsible tax cuts... even if we then were trillions more in debt. People like Thom Hartman were once for drying up jobs so illegal immigrants would pack up and go home. He said they drove down wages for US workers, then did a 180 when Obama pushed for comprehensive immigration reform. US labor tended to also be against immigration reform... and they did a 180.
Narratives come and go.
pnwmom
(109,000 posts)revbones
(3,660 posts)lower minimum wages...
pnwmom
(109,000 posts)support a $12 minimum wage, the level that the research shows wouldn't cause employers to shed jobs.
revbones
(3,660 posts)Because it wasn't.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I have no problem going higher than $11... I only use that number because it WAS the highest historical minimum we've ever had and BEA and BLS numbers show it caused no unemployment nor inflation.
But the last time we continually raised the MW's real purchasing power was between 1950 and 1968 we had a protectionist and unionized economy. We need to reestablish that so corporations can't bolt the US market to escape MW laws.
I also worry about shocking the economy that's grown addicted to a depreciating MW. If the MW had simply been adjusted to inflation all these years and the MW increased in real value as it did from 1950 to 1968... it might have been at $12-14 by now. Employers would have adjusted to that. Instead they've adjusted to stealing more and more of a worker's wages. This dynamic can't be negated with the wave of a magic wand. But if magic wands are your thing... feel free to wave it.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)There would be no need to "shed jobs" at $15. I'm not buying into the poor put upon employers of minimum wage jobs.
revbones
(3,660 posts)How very New Democrat of you.
First out isn't today that it would go into effect, it would be phased in over time.
Second, there is the distinct probability that it would get negotiated down so why start from a less than ideal bargaining position?
Thirdly, you ignore productivity gains completely by arguing for lower than 15
Shoulders of Giants
(370 posts)Therefore you should expect people in your party to have different viewpoints than yours. And the original poster is calling for a 10.95 minimum wage, something very few Republicans are doing.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I do find it rather shocking how many here just assume that if someone doesn't support every proposal that some liberal Dem comes up with... that they must be GOP shills.
Party narratives and positions change. Political partisans tend to mold their opinions to the current cause. And if they do a 180 a few years down the road... that old position gets swept under the rug. For example liberal Dems tended to be against the irresponsible Bush tax cuts back in 2000. They threatened debt paydown and could threaten Social Security.
Come 2011ish... they supported Obama's plan to keep most of those Bush tax cuts... but decided the higher tax on the rich was perfectly fine. Gone was all thought of debt paydown... and many began to believe that debt was fine.
I'm just one who places principle before party.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)
jonno99
(2,620 posts)
Iggo
(47,574 posts)
desmiller
(747 posts)
greymattermom
(5,754 posts)are coming to a McDonalds near you.
ohnoyoudidnt
(1,858 posts)Eventually, they will take so many jobs that a guaranteed minimum income will be necessary.
awake
(3,226 posts)A $15 MW will force Wallmart to pay their works a living wage and stop the subitys the they are getting right now by having government pickup the slack by providing the Walmart workers with food stamps.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Sure... I think it's insane that we have a system where we subsidize MW workers with benefits instead of them letting them earn more... and if we went back to $10.90ish that would mean $7300 more a year. That's not exactly peanuts. To move back to $10.90 means it will cover everyone from $7.25 to $10.90... and that alone will cover 10s of millions of workers.
We know the high MW of 1968 didn't cause disruptions to the economy even if was gradually going up in real value since about 1950. But that economy was different then. We had higher taxes on the rich. We've foolishly allowed the economy to become addicted to a depreciating MW and we foolishly sabotaged our industrial base with free trade. This is an escape hatch for US companies that needs to be closed... a and we need to putt tariffs back on imported goods. When we sabotaged our economy's ability to absorb those who will lose their jobs if the MW is too high.
My point is raising the MW even back to its 1968 value will require undoing much of the neolib insanity that has devastated our economy the past 35 years. To try and go further to $15... essentially doubling the current MW, isn't a free lunch as some seem to think it is.
awake
(3,226 posts)As for tariffs what most countries have done is a "goods and services Tax" or VAT (Value added Tax) by doing that they have made products produced in their country more attractive since the tax charged the manufacture is refunded to them, this is how most countries can say they are conducting free trade while at the same time making foreign manufactured goods cost more with out using "tariffs".
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)So are you advocating a "living wage" to cover ALL possibilities? So if $15 isn't enough for an adult with 2 kids living in a big city are you suggesting the entire nation should then go to $16? $18? $20 even for some teen living at home in some rural backwater?
awake
(3,226 posts)I see no problem with an across the board $15 MW if you do not then you are more than free to for a Republican or a Third way Democrat (which some call "Republican light"
for myself I will back the FDR Demarcate.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)According to http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm
The MW in 1938 was 25c an hour.
According to http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=.25&year1=1938&year2=2016 that MW today would be a pathetic $4.20 an hour.
And you're pretending that my call for going back to the HIGHEST MW we've ever had is somehow because I'm GOP lite?
Are there any fair-minded liberal Dems out there?
rockfordfile
(8,704 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Really... the best argument ya got is to accuse me of being a right winger?
HoustonDave
(60 posts)so you are advocating cutting benefits to those making minimum wage? Sure sounds it. Who loses in that case?
I find it hard to believe that in the long run, the rest of us won't have to indirectly subsidize this - businesses will be forced to raise their prices to pay the $15/hr workers. The extra $7 an hour doesn't just come from nowhere. If a business is running a few percent gross margin (I work for a huge corporation whose gross is 3.99%) and they have a lot of employees, you may rest assured they will not altruistically donate the difference. Someone pays.
Based on my last few fast-food experiences, $30,000 annually for what they do is a freakin' joke. It fit the old joke better: "Minimum wage means you deserve, and we would pay you, even less if we could... but it's illegal."
Cobalt Violet
(9,905 posts)You have no proof of what you speak.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)The MW was $1.60 in 1968 http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm
adjusting it to inflation is $10.90
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1.60&year1=1968&year2=2016
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)On the fact that inflation does not include groceries or energy, gas was .35 cents and a loaf of bread was maybe 25 to 50 cents ... these are the things that we all need and cannot skimp on so gas is 10 times as much no and that is the lowest it has been in a long time. Best take this idea someplace that might believe it.. not gonna happen here
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)some people walk, bike or ride the bus. I've been biking or walking to work for most of the last 14 years, even when I did own a car. And except for a three year period when I lived 12 miles from my job I lived most of the 15 years before that without a car too.
And it depends on the year. My 1979 yearbook shows a gas price of 82 cents. That's $2.35 according to the inflation calculator even from 1980. We've been less than that for much of the last year. So gas was higher at some points in the past too.
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)Aren't you "special" the fact, if you take time to look" is that this is a pretty fucking large country and a whole lot of us do not live within walking or bike riding distance of anything that resembles a work place.. Just because you don't need gas is not any sort of indication that a goodly portion of the rest of the country doesn't...so sit on you high horse and enjoy your "specialness"
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)that is my point.
If a non-special person like me CAN do it, then others should be able to as well. In fact, many others do. I see people walking all the time in this town, and there are a number of bicycles too.
Many, many people CHOOSE to not do it, because a two mile walk is a lot more work, and more annoying, than a two mile car ride. And once they plan their life around the car, they forget that it WAS a choice they made.
You didn't say anything about the high gas prices of the past.
Nice tone though. Are you trying to convince me that you are a nice and compassionate person?
shraby
(21,946 posts)pharmacy; 35 miles to shopping area; 35 miles to work; 35 miles to a library; 20 miles to get a hair cut; 15 miles to a doctor. All our town had was 2 grocery stores and 2 gas stations.
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)Millions of us who live out in the rural areas? Not everyone can or wants to live in a town,city,metropolis ...Some of us like the country, some of us cannot afford to rent or buy in a city.. all of you that do more power to ya...
Rex
(65,616 posts)I cannot understand why a libertarian would want to post here, I guess to get their ass kicked, figuratively, daily by a bunch of progressives.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Supporting the federal minimum wage law, as the OP does, pretty much rules out "libertarian".
Try a different label. "Libertarian" is for someone who opposes all federal workplace and wage and hour laws, up to and including child labor laws.
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)Bother to look into the truth, they have some preconceived ideas that they picked up at whatever republican board they most recently visited and bring the garbage here... If they looked up almost any major business such as Costco who pays their employees a living wage and constantly out preforms almost every cut-rate like wally world and target they might finally see the light and determine that when the people make money so do the big corporations... rather than trickle down we get trickle up, if the "masses" have money they spend it and the economy moves along nicely and the money ends up in the wealthy peoples pockets anyway it just takes a little longer and ends up keeping the lower 99% a lot happier..Since it seems like they are too stupid to be able to figure this out we all get hurt...
lunasun
(21,646 posts)Although below is about contract work , why not move in to min. wage for a new "kick"?
https://lareviewofbooks.org/essay/50-shades-of-libertarian-love/
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)This seems to be the point of your post, yet aside from making the claim you offer no justification for it whatsoever.
What do you imagine would happen if the MW were raised nationally to $15? What exactly do you mean by "enormous disruptions"? Be specific. Why do you think this would happen? Again, be specific. Cite relevant precedents.
Making an argument consists of more than simply stating an opinion. By itself it is completely unconvincing. One could just as easily say (and there are those that do!) "Raising taxes on the upper class will have a depressive effect on the economy, resulting in a loss of jobs and a decrease in overall tax receipts". Of course, saying it doesn't make it true. Republicans will say any damn fool thing, truth be damned.
So, make your case. The ball is in your court.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I'm advocating for a MW that historically we KNOW did not cause unemployment nor inflation. The burden of proof is on those who want to go to $15... 38% ABOVE the highest the MW has ever been... and 207% above what it is today.
http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/minimum-wage-since-1938/
Skittles
(153,212 posts)it's almost like you have never evolved......oh wait
yuiyoshida
(41,867 posts)
Skittles
(153,212 posts)I've loved George since I first saw him on the original Star Trek 
bemildred
(90,061 posts)There is plenty that needs doing, it's just not proifitable. That's what government is for.
EL34x4
(2,003 posts)Don't forget the unicorns.
Why only $30 an hour? Why not $50?
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)We're the richest nation on the planet. We should make better use of that wealth, distribute it a lot better than we do now.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Why not $3.15?
ohnoyoudidnt
(1,858 posts)
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)tkmorris
(11,138 posts)Because terrible things would happen if we did. The seas would rise, the skies would crack, a plague of snakes, whatever. There is no reason whatsoever to take such a claim seriously, especially since you have offed exactly nothing in support of this view.
There is no history to draw upon in this country to directly analyze the effects of a $15 MW, but what we do have suggests rather clearly that whatever level of MW might begin to have a chilling effect on jobs, we have yet to reach it. We do however have data from other countries which suggests that $15 per hour is not the economy killer you seem to think it is.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)
Reter
(2,188 posts)I live with my cousin and pay $450 rent per month, which I have in half a week. Overtime gets me another 10 hours, and I get weekends off. Any you're telling me some kid should make more than that? If a punk 16 year old gets $30, then I want $50.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)ohnoyoudidnt
(1,858 posts)the wages for skilled labor will increase above that, right? nt
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)We aren't just trying to account for inflation. We also aren't just trying to get minimum wage workers more money. We are trying to lift wages across the board to change the game, narrow the ever-widening inequality gap.
Flyingbird5066
(75 posts)I understand that some smaller local businesses have much lower profits and owners who are only upper middle class and I might only apply a $12 minimum wage to them. But I say boo hoo if a $15 min wage forces McDonald's to cut its CEOs salary.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)... Doesn't seem to be worth it to employers.
$15 is the low end of skilled labor.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)I would imagine cashiers can be replaced, and automate a bit more in the back.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Just like the "compromise" proposal to have different minimum wages in different parts of the nation don't work... it just creates incentives to skirt the law.
It has to be one wage, everywhere, for all employers. Unconditionally.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm
http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/minimum-wage-since-1938/
How is calling for the MW to go back up to the highest MW we ever had something Reagan would support? Of course states and cities could go higher.
ish of the hammer
(444 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)In an economy that's becoming increasingly automated... how many workers will we need?
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)makes this argument entirely ridiculous. Try again.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)but sadly, none of you has received a reply. How odd.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I'm advocating for a MW that historically we KNOW did not cause unemployment nor inflation. But let's not forget that in 1968 we had a protectionist economy. If we want to start raising the MW above the historic high we need to reconfigure the economy to end free trade and re-industrialize america.
The burden of proof is on those who want to go to $15 nationally... 38% ABOVE the highest the MW has ever been... and 207% above what it is today.
http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/minimum-wage-since-1938/
The idea that $15 can be declared a "living wage" for a big city is one thing. It's quite another to say that's a living wage for all parts of the nation. So will $15 be excessive in a depressed or rural areas of other states? And just who's it a living wage for? A single person? An adult with a child? Two children? Does the national MW go up for EVERYONE just because it's not a living wage for an adult with 2 kids living in a big city?
$15 is an arbitrary number.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Not Australia. I provided the documentation.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Your source is?
From the horse's mouth...
What is the current national minimum wage?
The national minimum wage is currently $17.29 per hour or $656.90 per 38 hour week (before tax).
https://www.fairwork.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/723/Minimum-wages.pdf.aspx
and with the exchange rate... the Australian dollar today is worth about .76c US
http://www.x-rates.com/calculator/?from=AUD&to=USD&amount=1
$17.29
0.76 ×
--------------------------
$13.1404 = US
Response to eniwetok (Original post)
gsb54 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Doremus
(7,261 posts)One income family, stay at home mom, 4 kids, nice house in suburbs, boat, vacations, etc
You didn't mention college tuition, but my dad paid them from his salary and kids' part-time summer jobs. No loans necessary.
Sadly, today's generations have never experienced a lifestyle like this and don't realize it's not impossible as they currently believe. 
gsb54
(89 posts)The rule in our home was, parents would pay for 1/2 of tuition fees matching the 1/2 each kid would contribute. Tuition at a state college was affordable, $3000/yr. No loans.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts) 
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)So right there, the numbers for what this will cost to employers is wrong.
$15 is being stepped in in CA, which people are upset about, since the COL here already could bear a higher wage, but it will give time for business to adjust.
People in my area are paying so much in rent that it is affecting small business owners. A higher wage would actually help this, rather than hurt them.
The GDP of this entire country has been reduced because of high rent areas like urban CA and NYC.
That money is being sucked away to housing costs and not being circulated in the economy.
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)Why are you opposed to the best economic stimulus we have?
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)AND that $10.95 is higher than ANY state's current MW today.... and higher than what Obama has proposed.
I think some are blinded by the concept of a "living wage" and think a single number can be imposed on the entire economy regardless of local/regional circumstances... or of the worker's situation. So if a worker with 2 kids living in a big city can't get by with $15... then what? If a small business in a depressed area can't pay $15 and fires a worker or two... then what?
There are other ideas for economic stimulus... end free trade to bring back US jobs... and restructure Wall St so it invests in productive work instead of trying to make money out of thin air with pointless speculation.
Javaman
(62,534 posts)Minimum Wage Would Be $21.72 If It Kept Pace With Increases In Productivity: Study
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/13/minimum-wage-productivity_n_2680639.html
The minimum wage should have reached $21.72 an hour in 2012 if it kept up with increases in worker productivity, according to a March study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research. While advancements in technology have increased the amount of goods and services that can be produced in a set amount of time, wages have remained relatively flat, the study points out.
Even if the minimum wage kept up with inflation since it peaked in real value in the late 1960s, low-wage workers should be earning a minimum of $10.52 an hour, according to the study.
Between the end of World War II and the late 1960s, productivity and wages grew steadily. Since the minimum wage peaked in 1968, increases in productivity have outpaced the minimum wage growth.
The current minimum wage stands at $7.25 an hour. In 2011, more than 66 percent of Americans surveyed by the Public Religion Research Institute supported raising this figure to $10.
1939
(1,683 posts)What has been the productivity gain in the jobs which minimum wage workers do?
Javaman
(62,534 posts)1939
(1,683 posts)We are talking about the equitable distribution of productivity gains.
PETRUS
(3,678 posts)You seem to be suggesting that the benefits of productivity gains should not be broadly distributed. I think there are compelling (moral and utilitarian) arguments that they should be - e.g., without division of labor "productivity across the board" would be substantially lower. Care to defend your position?
1939
(1,683 posts)Lawn mowing and landscaping--Little productivity gains since the invention of the power mower, power edger, and power blower.
Gas stations--Major productivity gains with just one person in the convenience store watching 8-12 pumps versus half a dozen pump jockeys in the old days.
How do we allocate this? The poor guy with the landscape company isn't seeing the productivity gains in his profit margin, but you want to raise the wages of his helpers because of productivity gains elsewhere in the economy. Meanwhile the owner of the gas station has cut his payroll 75-85% and can afford to give the guy behind the window a little extra because he doesn't have to pay the pump jockeys.
.
PETRUS
(3,678 posts)The reason someone can work full time in a sector experiencing productivity gains is because they don't have to take care of all of life's necessities themselves. Their increased productivity is made possible by others performing tasks that they would have to do themselves if they were alone in the world. "How do we allocate this?" is entirely a political decision. One needn't wonder what more egalitarian economic arrangements look like. Examples are available: the US in the relatively recent past, and much of Western Europe today.
Aristus
(66,468 posts)n/t
zalinda
(5,621 posts)It is $15 in a few years time. What will the inflation rate be then? Also, back in 1960 things were a little different. Believe it or not there were people who had no phones at all. I know that in my area, we still had party lines. A party line for those who do not know, was when more than one person had access to a phone line, you sometimes had to wait until that person was off the phone before you could use it and in some cases, you had no idea who the other parties were on the phone. And, yes, you could listen in on phone conversations. In rural areas you still had switchboard operators, who would connect you to the person you wanted to call. You would only pick up the phone when your ring signal had rung. Btw, this is why people still wait for a phone to ring 3 or 4 times before they pick up, it was to recognize if it was your ring signal. Now, every person basically HAS to have a phone for work and you have to be available at all times to answer it.
Back in the 1960's, where you worked was close to home. Believe it or not, a lot of people still didn't have cars and certainly not more than one car per family. There were also a lot more jobs. Your local paper would have an entire section of the newspaper devoted to job listings and it would run 6 to 10 pages on a Sunday with small typeset ads. Now, it is almost a requirement to have a car, and even if you don't you have to have a drivers license.
Yes, life has become more expensive and complicated than in the 1960's. We oldies probably could go on for days about what it was like back then.
Z
haele
(12,682 posts)Most job applications are online, so they can be downloaded into a hiring app that looks for keywords and certain required fields (which now include requirements for mobile phone numbers, email addresses, listing of social media sites...) Most employers would prefer to deal with their employees via email or text.
A perspective employee also typically need a clean credit and criminal record, and some other way of differentiating yourself from the hundreds of other people who are looking for the same job. So some form of college, or a diploma rather than a GED, or a certification or current work experience, because the new employer certainly doesn't have time to train new employees for any amount of time anymore.
What is particularly annoying is that minimum wage jobs and around minimum wage jobs now include jobs that weren't minimum wage a decade prior...
Cashiers used to be a "work up to" above minimum wage job, while the minimum wage was stocker or bagger. I remember working as a part-time cashier/floor worker at a fabric store and making $1.25 more an hour than the floor workers who weren't allowed to ring up the customer in 1989. The position was considered a trusted position, because you handled money. That position is now considered minimum wage, and if there is a bump up in wage to be promoted to a trusted position, it's certainly not the equivalent of $3.00 more (due to inflation) as it was back in 1989.
A neighbor who just got her CVN license two years ago still makes just above minimum wage in CA - $10.25 an hour at a nursing home. A rent-mate in 1993 made $14 an hour working at a nursing home as a CVN one year after getting her license.
The importance of job positions have decreased, whether through supply and demand (excess of labor available to fill those positions driving down wages), or through a concerted effort to degrade the importance of those jobs as a menial position rather than a service position.
This is an insidious trend I've been railing against since the late 1990's, when I began noticing wages stagnate and more and more mid-level positions (especially in trusted or semi-skilled positions) sliding down to the "menial labor/unskilled labor" level of pay, benefits, and respect.
Funny thing - this trend has been observed since the term "Union Worker" became a dirty word.
Haele
1939
(1,683 posts)Supply and demand. Unions thrive when they can control the supply of labor. The problem comes when the supply becomes uncontrollable.
Look what has happened in the last 55 years:
1. Baby boom poured new workers into the economy.
2. Women left off being housewives and joined the workforce.
3. Legal immigration increased exponentially as the restrictions of the 1920s were relaxed.
4. Gigantic increases in illegal immigration.
5. Dramatic decrease in jobs available due to automation, computerization, and off-shoring
The most successful time for unions was the 1950s:
1. Only supply from the baby bust of the 1930s were entering the job market.
2. Very few married women were in the workforce.
3. Legal immigration was just a trickle.
4. Illegal immigration was made difficult enough that only young and vigorous young men could make it across and they could be quickly deported when they were no longer needed (i.e. at the end of the picking season).
mike_c
(36,281 posts)No one who works full time in the wealthiest nation on Earth should live in poverty. If that can be accomplished by $11/hour, then fine. If it take $20/hour then that's fine too. It need not be one single number for every workplace. The minimum wage should be a local living wage, whatever that takes.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)$15 an hour is not the same in Atchison, Kansas as it is in San Fransisco or Atlanta or Seattle or Phoenix.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)...where ever the job is located. $15/hour might be adequate in Smallville, Kansas, but it isn't anywhere close to a living wage in San Francisco, CA. The federal minimum wage does not have to be a specific, single dollar amount as it is currently. It could be expressed as a percentage of the local median home price instead, for example.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)that suggested the same thing.
It just encourages states and municipalities to compete to resist local increases. It has to be one number...equal to the the minimum living wage in the most expensive part of the nation. Anything else is non-negotiable.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Do you ever listen to yourself? I take it you've never run a business or had to manage programs when the state includes zero COLA for 2-3 years. You can just wave your magic wand and decree your will be done.
While you're at it why not tie the living wage to the person living in the most expensive area in the nation AND tie it to the number of dependents. After all... that $15 or $20 might not be enough. Everyone else.... living in low wage areas and single... it's all gravy for them. But then how is that gravy fair to the that person living in the most expensive area... and has dependents and is struggling? How is a struggling business responsible for a workers life choices?
Chan790
(20,176 posts)I just happen to be a class-warrior against my own personal interests because I recognize that they're not the nation's best interests...and I'm a prissy, pampered fellow who likes living in a prosperous, stable society where I don't have to worry about the proles having an uprising and slitting my throat in my sleep.
Also, yes...I've run successful businesses (and no, we don't pay anybody one dime more than we have to...we are rich and got that way by being cheap after-all. It's not that we can't afford to...we pay what we have to and what the market necessitates. It leaves a lot of the profits of other people's labors in our pockets.) and I have managed programs when the state decided that there would be no cost-of-living increases for multiple consecutive years. In fact, working in NPOs and for the public interest...usually on poverty and social justice concerns is what I consider my primary occupation...not the myriad shit that fills my bank account.
Coincidentally, I've also read both Thomas Piketty's and Michael Hudson's latest economics books...boring as shit but ever so informative for identifying the arguments and efforts of those in my progressive midst working against the interests of the public.
Though, I do say, your proposal is a capital idea! Let us index the minimum wage to actual cost-of-living, including dependencies. May we, in time, do exactly that. For now, $15/hr. everywhere is a great start.
By the way, do I need a bill of lading to take possession of my property? I do believe I just owned your ass and would like it shipped so I can display it in my home library. I'm even going to have a nice alabaster plaque with gold informational-plates made to display it upon.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)So your idea of winning an argument is to propose the ridiculous? So you want to further delink equal work for equal pay we have with gender inequality... and instead make an employer pay for an employee's life choices? So in your utopia the pimpled face kid with no experience will make $15 an hour flipping burgers... and the mom with 3 kids will make... say $20-$25 for doing the same work? So the kid will make $31.5k and the mom will make $41.6-$52k?
BRILLIANT!
Yup, no employers would EVER discriminate against that mom with kids. They can just charge customers more... and that would NEVER put them at a competitive disadvantage to other burger joints.
Yup... gotta love these magic wand "solutions".
SHRED
(28,136 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)To go from $7.25 to $15 is a 208% increase. How many years will it take to be phased in? I've heard about 5. Show me when the MW was EVER doubled in that short a time.
http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/minimum-wage-since-1938/
At a time when the MW was actually going up in real value it took FORTY YEARS for it to double for about $4 to $8 in 2015 dollars.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)model is shit, and they should find another line of work.
underahedgerow
(1,232 posts)behind his nice desk and delegating. Cut the CEO pay and bring the workers pay up to par.
That being said, yes, this will be difficult for smaller shops, but that's the cost of doing business.
The next step is getting rid of the BS restaurant servers wage and paying them like every other worker on the planet.
Skink
(10,122 posts)Many employees as they could from healthcare so the money they saved should go back to the employees instead of the Caymans.
rogerashton
(3,920 posts)US income per capita in unadjusted dollars was 4,695, and 1.60 was 34/10000 of the annual GDP per capita.
This year income per capita in unadjusted dollars is projected at 55,774.56 -- increased estimated over ten times. Then 34/10000 of per capita income would be $ 19. A $15 minimum wage is not high enough!
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)You cannot try to be reasonable to people who will just start gathering stones if they don't agree with what you say.
Some people here think the minimum wage should be googleplex per second or something, and think that ridiculous proposals make for stronger bargaining rather than just easy dismissal.
It's an outrage that my calculator has an upper limit of 10 to the 9,999trh power. It means I cannot do computations with my minimum wage proposal.
Well it would mean that. Thank goodness I learned logarithms all those years ago.
Rex
(65,616 posts)You just never disappoint in sounding just like a libertarian. Barf.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)but what am I?
"You are NOT part of the body!!!"
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)Which is to say, not at all.
WHY shouldn't the minimum wage be $15 per hour? Be specific.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)I'm picturing a 16 year old in rural West Virginia or Kentucky trying to get their first summer job. Have you driven through these areas lately? I have. I just can't imagine who is going to pay them $15 an hour. That's more than their parents make now.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"Some people here think the minimum wage should be googleplex per second or something..."
While yet others make unsupported and hyped-up allegations to better maintain the pretenses they have relevant knowledge and make substantive contributions to threads.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Your pathetic attempt at sounding like a republican...I assume you are just a confused libertarian...makes me feel sorry for you. Go get a real education and get back with us when you understand economics a little better. Google doesn't count.
Bye bye.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)and has never supported $15.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Again, that you infer merely two possibilities is on you, not anyone else. Logical fallacies are trendy and fun, but often illustrate their users as less than intelligent.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)I vote for him twice, but he has consistently revealed himself to be too pro-business interests at the expense of the public interest, same as Hillary. It's why I'll never support Hillary and wouldn't vote for Obama again.
So...no, I'm no longer a supporter of Obama...he has done less than he promised and less than he could have.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I think the person having problems understanding economics AND politics isn't I.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Everyone year after year thinks it's a great idea to put labor-hating politicians into office and they wonder why the economy has no long term plan nor ANY kind of plan for near-permanently displaced workers.
Their options are
a) go into crippling debt to better themselves.
b) go into crippling debt to merely survive and hope they don't get sick.
c) win the small business lottery.
d) starve and die.
But hey, don't listen to me. Just automate everything. Consumers will come up with the money somehow. Maybe out of thin air.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)sakabatou
(42,180 posts)
On the Road
(20,783 posts)but it is higher than the average or median wage in the poorest states. $15/hour in rural Arkansas is like $25 in NYC, which is too high even for that environment.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Otherwise you will just encourage relocation of industry to the localities with the lowest wage conditional on them agreeing to resist any effort to raise the local minimum.
One $$$ everywhere. So...if it's $15 in NYC it has to be $15 in Arkansas and $15 in Seattle and San Fran. They can set a higher local prevailing wage...but not a lower one.
The push is $15 everywhere...not $15 where $15 is still a poverty wage.
On the Road
(20,783 posts)Cost of living index:
Manhattan, NY 216
Springfield, MO 88
How can you have the same minimum wage in both? They're not comparable.
[small]Source: http://www.infoplease.com/business/economy/cost-living-index-us-cities.html [/small]
Chan790
(20,176 posts)If you index the minimum wage...you will see jobs relocated to those states that are not only lowest MW but also most resistant to any rise in minimum wage once their prosperity improves.
It becomes a race to the bottom.
You will see any job that can be relocated from NY state to KS actually be relocated to KS.
It has to be the same everywhere.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)He has never advocated a $15 minimum wage, but has proposed that it be $10.10.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)No, I absolutely do not agree with the President. If I was Barack Obama I would be ashamed of my support for a $10.10 minimum.
MattP
(3,304 posts)And not the fake inflation that doesnt take into account drug prices and other things
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Not sure how the MINIMUM wage could be raised to $15/hr here.
I think the minimum wage should be indexed to local cost of living. $15/hr is probably too high where I live, but it's probably way too low for places like NYC or LA.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)It will merely act to encourage job-flight to the cheapest labor-markets.
One minimum everywhere needs to remain the law of the land.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)The buying power of $15 in NYC is not even CLOSE to the buying power of $15 here.
Also, minimum wage jobs tend to be low-end service jobs. They can't relocate to rural areas.
The fact is, a flat minimum wage means that poor people concentrated in cities (mostly minorities, btw) get screwed compared to rural minimum wage workers, since their $15/hr come sup much shorter in terms of buying power.
Look at this:
[link:https://uniformlyuninformative.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/city-data-screen-scraper-and-maps/|]
How does a flat minimum wage make any sense in this context?
Chan790
(20,176 posts)There's nothing there.
It's completely logical. It's not even debateable because we already see it...jobs, at every level of the spectrum from entry-level minimum-wage to the top of the pay-scale, flow from higher-cost labor markets to lower-cost labor markets already. Local indexing will increase this rate of flow because it will make the cheaper markets much cheaper than they are now.
Also, a greater increase in prosperity for people in more-rural markets doesn't actually screw workers who also get an increase in prosperity, albeit a lesser increase, in more-urban markets. It isn't like raising the minimum wage increases the rate of inflation or the price of goods...that's one of those misunderstandings that people that don't actually understand how these things work, believe.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Cost of living and median income are not evenly distributed. If someone living in New York City is making the same minimum wage as someone in Peru, Indiana, the person in New York is going to be much worse off than the person in Peru. And Burger King already has a franchise in Peru, so I promise they will not move the BKs in NYC to Peru.
This is uneven and unfair. It makes no sense.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)The person in Peru is just going to see a more substantial gain than the person in NYC. They're both going to see a gain...the larger gain in Peru does nothing to harm the person in NYC.
Seeking equality and fairness in outcomes is part of the problem, never the solution...it presupposes that every gain is offset by someone else's equivalent loss. That's not true. There is someone who is seeing a loss here and it's me as the business owner...and trust me when I say it's not even close to equal to the gain by the worker.
The person who lives in NYC is perfectly free to move to Peru for the greater gain, if they so choose. That is entirely different than having their job relocated to Peru without their input so that some business owner can continue to pay them the same minimum wage they receive now. (Which is the outcome of the solution you favor.) Their lesser gain is entirely because they choose to live someplace with a higher cost of living...for that matter, I live in a 5000sqft mansion in W. CT on a mountain top. My 3.5 acre backyard (at approx. $1M/acre) probably costs more than all the real estate in rural Peru, Indiana too. My cost of living is higher than what it would be in rural Indiana too...that's because W. CT is a much nicer place to live.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)I think $15 is ok for some select very expensive metro areas, but is way too high for most of the country. $10/hr should be the national minimum wage.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)That's $1 lower than I proposed. With talk like that some here are sure to accuse you of being a secret GOPer, of supporting "predatory employment", and you'll make their ignore list. It seems many here don't quite get the idea that this MW is the MINIMUM for the entire nation.... a floor for unskilled labor. Joe's Garage out in East Shitcake isn't going to pay some kid $15 to sweep the floor.
corbettkroehler
(1,898 posts)and just passed $15 minimum wage with bipartisan support.
America finally is back on the path to a living wage for all.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)From http://www.syracuse.com/state/index.ssf/2016/03/cuomo_announces_ny_state_budget_deal_includes_15_minimum_wage.html
The bill really targets the high population centers around NYC...
For workers in the rest of the state, in Upstate New York, the minimum wage would increase to $9.70 at the end of 2016, then another 70 cents each year after until reaching $12.50 on 12/31/2020. After that, it may continue to increase to $15 on an indexed schedule to be set by the director of the Division of Budget in consultation with the Department of Labor.
In 2019, the state can suspend the future minimum increases if the economy is not doing well.
Cuomo said he expects the Upstate minimum wage to reach $15 an hour, and said it will be entirely up to the governor's budget director after 2021 to decide if the economic data shows the economy will supports that.
At least this bill makes the distinction between rural and urban.
islandmkl
(5,275 posts)Minimum Wage Increases Over the Years
October 1938 (FDR): $0.25/hr ($4.15/hr in 2014 dollars)
October 1939 (FDR): $0.30/hr ($5.05/hr)
October 1945 (Truman): $0.40/hr ($5.20/hr)
January 1950 (Truman): $0.75/hr ($7.29/hr)
March 1956 (Eisenhower): $1/hr ($8.61/hr)
September 1961 (Kennedy): $1.16/hr ($8.97/hr)
September 1963 (Kennedy): $1.25/hr ($9.56/hr)
February 1967 (Johnson): $1.40/hr ($9.80/hr)
February 1968 (Johnson): $1.60/hr ($10.75/hr)
May 1974 (Nixon): $2/hr ($9.49/hr)
January 1975 (Ford): $2.10/hr ($9.13/hr)
January 1976 (Ford): $2.30/hr ($9.47/hr)
January 1978 (Carter): $2.65 ($9.51/hr)
January 1979 (Carter): $2.90/hr ($9.34/hr)
January 1980 (Carter): $3.10/hr ($8.80/hr)
January 1981 (Carter): $3.35/hr ($8.62/hr)
April 1990 (Bush): $3.80/hr ($6.82/hr)
April 1991 (Bush): $4.25/hr ($7.30/hr)
October 1996 (Clinton): $4.75/hr ($7.08/hr)
September 1997 (Clinton): $5.15/hr ($7.51/hr)
July 2007 (GW Bush): $5.85/hr ($6.61/hr)
July 2008 (GW Bush): $6.55/hr ($7.12/hr)
July 2009 (Obama): $7.25/hr ($7.80/hr)
As you can see, the minimum wage has increased in a linear fashion in terms of dollars, but in terms of real dollars, minimum wage has declined sharply from its highest point in February 1968.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)Is the actual culprit ....
I'm not a fan of proponents of right wing economics, so I have no choice but to deflect your comments to the dead letter bin ...
Mary Mac
(323 posts)Small business would have trouble
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Ordering from automated kiosks would probably become the norm. And supermarket self-checkouts would multiply dramatically.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)...the starting position in negotiations with Congressional Republicans. They may come back with $8 per hour, and ultimately the compromise might be $11.00 or so.
And I suspect that $11 per hour as a minimum wage is not going to have a terrible impact on the unemployment rate.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)LOL
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)$10.90 an hour where I live (in Tennessee) would be a huge game-changer for a lot of people.
WhiteTara
(29,728 posts)I think it will work out just fine.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Anywhere from 18 to 20 depending on the economist you read.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I notice that much as a return to the draft is advocated by people who are safe from being drafted, shorting the minimum wage is exclusively advocated by people who are well above it.
tenderfoot
(8,438 posts)eom
Visionary
(54 posts)The current minimum wage is shamefully low. Accounting for inflation it should at LEAST be raised to $10-$11 per hour nationally. $15 seems just a bit high though. Some jobs really don't take any skill beyond just being a warm body.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)Enjoy your 8.00 per hour lifestyle.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)CEOs make over 400% more than their average worker. I think they can afford $15/hr. You are going straight to my ignore list.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,385 posts)If the minimum wage rose in line with that, you'd be putting it up to $24.63.
GDP has risen by an average of 1.7% per year. Putting the minimum wage up to $15 would be the equivalent of an average 0.66% rise above inflation, each year. That seems fairly modest.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)Put your lack of money where your mouth is.
Melurkyoulongtime
(136 posts)I've actually been saying that for years to people who last made minimum wage back in the 60s - 80s. They have absolutely no idea how much buying power the minimum wage has lost over the past decades and furthermore most don't really give a shite when you press them on the issue either. It's the "Fuck you Jack, I got mine" mentality all over again.
For example I made $5/hour in the early 90s while in college (MW was $4.25 at the time) and due to the crappy economy and a layoff in 2012 I make $8/hour now (I had been making $20/hour + excellent benefits when I was fortunate enough to work within my industry). That $5/hour wage had quite a bit more buying power back then than my $8/hour does today. Not only does the MW need to be indexed for inflation it also needs to have expenses not included in the inflation index factored in as stated in above posts.
It is unconscionable that people are working 40+ hours a week and can't even afford an EFFICIENCY apartment on their own in my area and I'm in a CHEAP part of the South. Everyone I work with RIGHT NOW lives with relatives due to housing costs except our general manager. Ridiculous! My company is a $6 billion a year business and pays our CEO tens of millions a year for what? Golfing? Schmoozing? What, pray tell, is this guy doing that makes HIS service worth so much more than those of us that actually you know, do the real work?
Oh, and the $20/hour job I had? It's a $6 billion dollar a year company as well except THEY started their new hires out at $13 back in 2012.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)It's always the same thing with them: They lecture today's teens ( their own kids even ) about how they should be more self-sufficien....like they were when they worked for minimum wage back in the late 60s.
I have always pointed out to them the aplles vs oranges aspect. Miinum wage in the 60s would be over 15 dollars and hour today, adjusted. They studiously ignore that as they look back on a pothole free memory lane.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Where have I EVER suggested that states should not be free to go above the federal minimum or that cities in states can't go higher than their state?
What we're talking about is the NATIONAL MW... the lowest an unskilled kid sweeping a floor can be paid... and no business, except in a high flying city with a labor shortage is going to pay that kid $31k a year. And then there's the absurdity to think that $15 is a living wage in that big city isn't just pure gravy for some kid living at home in East Shitcake WV.
NY's approach for $15 near NYC and $12.50 upstate... wait and see after that, makes more sense than CA's approach to go $15 state wide. I predicting a backlash outside the big cities. But we won't know for 4-5 years.
But feel free to wave that magic wand and decree your word be done... after all, it's not your money.
Melurkyoulongtime
(136 posts)doesn't usually get 40 or more hours a week scheduled at their job in the first place. And if they're actual teenagers they shouldn't as there are laws regarding that and they're supposed to be in school anyway. What you are not realizing is a lot of people that are adults are starting to have to work these jobs due to a layoff, divorce, etc and they can't even support themselves on it much less their families. And it's not like they're settling for a dead end job because they're lazy or stupid or uneducated; it's because those companies are the ones actually hiring in their area and they're desperate for ANY kind of income coming in. A country that runs on and even encourages desperation in its workers doesn't remain a first world country for long.
Solly Mack
(90,789 posts)
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)
peabody
(445 posts)It always seem like it's somebody that doesn't work in a minimum wage job trying to support him or herself and their family that's complaining about how the minimum can't be $15/hour. These people disgusts me. How come they never post "sorry...a $4,000,000 a year salary is too high"?
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)it's alright. It's not easy being a billionaire.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Rents here are pushing $1000/mo per bedroom.
Most jobs are now service jobs which are not full-time.
Come on down and try it for a while. Let us know how it feels to be living under an overpass and dumpster diving for food.
Until then I suggest you STFU about $15/hr is too high.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)The American War for Independence is one example of a beneficial "disruption".
We need to finish our political revolution, and various disruptions will definitely be a major part of how we take down the 1%. and take our country back.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)it is my hope that your posts will get better in time.
Warpy
(111,367 posts)High wages at the bottom are what fueled the longest boom this country has ever experienced. Think about that for just a minute. The minimum wage was originally set to keep one full time worker earning enough to support a wife and two kids above the poverty line. It's set that way even for unskilled and service workers around the world and their economies are much healthier than ours. So are their people, a side benefit of having enough to live on.
You can't be stingy with workers and expect to have a healthy economy. You're choking off the demand side when you try. Look around your area at all the empty storefronts. This is a direct result of cheap labor conservatism. Higher wages would have kept those businesses open.
Yours might be next.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)You claimed" High wages at the bottom are what fueled the longest boom this country has ever experienced. Think about that for just a minute. The minimum wage was originally set to keep one full time worker earning enough to support a wife and two kids above the poverty line.
Two points... we could support higher wages when we had a protectionist economy. All the REAL value of the MW increase steadily (with dips) from 1950 to 1968. Here's an interactive chart http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/minimum-wage-since-1938/ We have to close the escape hatch for companies to bolt the US for cheap labor nations... or to bring cheap goods in without heavy tariffs.
Second... who ever said the MW "originally set to keep one full time worker earning enough to support a wife and two kids above the poverty line" Let's see your credible source.
The original MW in 1938 was 25c... $520 a year... which translates into $4.19 an hour today.
The average income back in 1938 was $2116 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1660486/pdf/calwestmed00361-0070b.pdf
http://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster
You might also want to explore how much inflation is built into fiat currency. Yes, it is.
Right now, the inflation hysterics are shrieking along with men who see dollars getting away from them and into the pockets of their workers. Please consider that the original minimum wage was set to support a single earner and his family. Also consider that the present minimum wage won't support a single earner in safe housing, with nutritious food, and with other frills like medical care when he gets sick. Paying a worker less than it takes to keep him alive is fantastically immoral. It's also self defeating since it cuts into the demand side of the market equation. I won't even bother to address the appalling ethics of expecting taxpayers to subsidize underpaid retail workers so the retail company can maximize profits.
You will notice I posted only two sites instead of issuing a barrage, something I am certainly capable of. I think there is a ghost of a chance you might actually read only two. I don't hold out much hope that the reality check will be cashed.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Here was my question
Second... who ever said the MW "originally set to keep one full time worker earning enough to support a wife and two kids above the poverty line" Let's see your credible source.
The original MW in 1938 was 25c... $520 a year... which translates into $4.19 an hour today.
The average income back in 1938 was $2116 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1660486/pdf/calwestmed00361-0070b.pdf
Neither of your sites prove your claim...
As I've repeatedly said, $15 may be fine for urban areas that have a higher cost of living, but if we're talking about a NATIONAL MW, then it has to make sense for even the depressed areas of the nation... and the owner of Joe's Garage in East Bumcake isn't going to hire a kid for $15 to sweep the floor and clean the toilets. The concept of a living wage sounds great but blinds advocates to the simple reality that there's no way to have one single "living wage" for the entire nation. If that kid living at home in East Bumcake gets that $15 it's all gravy. For a mom who's a waitress in San Francisco with a kid in daycare... that $15 doesn't cut it. And yet it's obvious something has to be done since that $7.25 is criminally low.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the rural south and rural regions of Kentucky, West VA, etc.); but, in urban metropolises, it is way too low.
That is the problem with a national minimum wage.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)snip
Governor Andrew Cuomo and state legislative leaders reached a deal on Thursday to raise New York state's minimum wage towards $15 per hour, but fell short of a uniform state-wide increase.
The deal outlines a faster rise in New York City, but carves out a slow lane for small businesses and surrounding counties. In less prosperous areas north of the city it rises to $12.50 per hour before a state review of the law's impact.
The minimum wage agreement was part of a broad budget deal that Cuomo announced late on Thursday. He said the plan included 12 weeks of paid family leave and $4.2 billion in tax cuts. The $147 billion budget caps spending growth at 2 percent.
"I believe that this is the best plan the state has produced in decades," Cuomo told a news conference in the state capital, Albany. Cuomo has earmarked $100 billion in infrastructure spending in the state.
snip
dana_b
(11,546 posts)does freeperville still exist?
karadax
(284 posts)A BAH raise (basic allowance for housing) the rents in the nearby communities go up to reflect the change. The leeches (landlords) suck away any chance for people to better themselves. That extra money goes poof rather quickly.
I would think that the $15 hike in the minimum wage would have the same effect. Rents would go up to absorb all of a persons gains. I am aware that some local governments have laws in place to protect from exactly this sort of thing but I am worried about the places that don't have protections.
$15 an hour with reasonable prices to rent a place and nobody would have a problem.
tenderfoot
(8,438 posts)Eom
Land Shark
(6,346 posts)
TexasBushwhacker
(20,220 posts)
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)TeamPooka
(24,262 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Maybe if you bothered to make a substantive argument.. oh, that's right. You'll never read this.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Leaving aside that there are some here... and NO, they're not closet GOPers, who agree with me... are you suggesting I post what others want to hear? Sorry... the $15 MW certainly makes sense in some cities but not as a NATIONAL MW that will apply even to some gas station in East Bumcake WV. No one's going to pay a kid $31k a year to sweep the floor when they might be getting by on $25k after expenses. But feel free to keep waving that magic wand that OF COURSE any and every business can afford to pay $15... plus the added FICA which would amount to an extra $1240ish a year if someone originally was making $7.25.
Currently the highest MW in any state is $10... but CA and NY are moving to $15... though NY's law is for the NYC area. Elsewhere it's $12.50 and it's wait and see.
Response to eniwetok (Original post)
GreenEyedLefty This message was self-deleted by its author.
Pakhet
(520 posts)of us who don't need to make do with whatever we can get
GreenEyedLefty
(2,073 posts)It certainly gives the lie to your bullshit about "enormous disruptions" in the economy.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)You do realize what the term MINIMUM means, right? It's the standard for UNSKILLED labor in any and everyplace in nation.
So your rebuttal to that is to find some places that pay more? Sure they exist. Numerous cities are moving to higher than their state's MW. And for the record the HIGHEST state MW today is $10. BUT CITIES ARE NOT THE ENTIRE NATION.
Even NY is not going to apply its eventual $15 to the entire state. Upstate may never get past $12.50 and that's for 2019.
GreenEyedLefty
(2,073 posts)in an industry where the standard wage is $2.00, did not damage the restaurant's success. In fact, they are more successful and planning on opening more.
They key part of the story but obviously you missed it, is that the owners made a business decision to "spread the wealth, and share it with the team."
It's not necessary for businesses to make multiple billions in profits at the expense of their workers.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)But not all areas of the nation, nor can every business, afford $15 for even the most unskilled worker. Really, Joe's Garage in the backwaters of West Virginia is going to hire a kid and pay them $31k a year to sweep the floor and clean toilets? What wealth does Joe have to spread? You can't apply a wage in a metro area to rural areas.
Yes, of course we need a reasonable national minimum wage just as we expect business to pay OT after 40, and have safe working conditions etc. It's a reasonable expectation given that We The People provide business with plenty of freebies. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027733743
And if a business can't meet these reasonable expectations, perhaps there is something wrong with their business model and they should close or work all the hours themselves.
My point is it's so easy for some here to sit on their high horses and pontificate that OF COURSE everyone, even unskilled teens, should get $15... which means those with skills will get more. Someone here even suggested pay be based on a MW plus their dependencies. Wow... right out of LaLa Land. So $15 plus maybe $5 more an hour per kid... and some business is going to pay $52k a year to a worker because they have two kids when the same work could be done by a single person for $31k?
There are two parties involved here not just one. And we've done much to create an economy that's addicted to a depreciating MW over the past 35 years especially. It's like how back in the 70's the economy was addicted to cheap oil and the OPEC oil embargo hammered us. We need to restructure the economy along numerous lines to make it reasonable again for workers. We need to reverse the sabotaging of our industrial sector with free trade, we need to get that MW back up at least to 1968 levels and from then on have guaranteed COLA increases. Just going back to 1968 MW alone would mean $7300 more a year. We need to prevent companies from fleeing the nation by changing tax laws. We can impose a higher burden on business with a protectionist economy than one where business has all these escape hatches.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Tell your friends. I think the basement door is open, so they should hear you.
polly7
(20,582 posts)
:largeSoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)so silly
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Another content-free "rebuttal".
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)laugh - it is what they merit
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)you're unable to defend your own position... so you just call anyone you disagree with a right winger.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)want to have a real discussion?
noamnety
(20,234 posts)The minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation. By simply saying "oh we will adjust for inflation, problem solved" you ignore the legacy of the effect of surviving without a living wage.
It's much like urban schools in depressed areas. Without the tax base of Grosse Pointe or Bloomfield Hills, the Detroit schools, supported by mainly local taxes, accrued decades of severe structural and maintenance problems. Then along with Proposal A, which switched school funding to mainly state taxes - a much more equitable approach. However, $100,000 in Grosse Pointe schools can be used for ipads, or swimming pools, or orchestra equipment, or a couple extra teachers - but in Detroit, it doesn't cover the cost of roof repairs that had been neglected to the point where some of the ceilings were literally caving in. So it's "even" funding - but still not equitable until the legacy is addressed.
When we look at families who have been surviving on the minimum wage, instead of being able to build equity in homes, or keep up with basic expenses or preventative health care, they have decades of accrued extra expenses and debts they are dealing with. This includes health problems they've put off addressing, or debt from the ones they did address. No home equity because there was no way to scrape together a down payment or qualify for a loan - so they will be paying rent throughout their old age, instead of having a house paid off. And there's no house for kids to inherit. They will have spent more dealing with the predatory lenders that DWS is so fond of. They don't have 401k plans. The pensions that covered almost half of all private sector employees in the 1970's now covers 3% of employees.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)You wrote The minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation. By simply saying "oh we will adjust for inflation, problem solved" you ignore the legacy of the effect of surviving without a living wage.
Hey, I wasn't the one who let the MW depreciate. I'm merely suggesting that we go back the highest the MW has ever been. BLS and BEA data show it didn't cause inflation nor cause unemployment.
But I think the idea of a "living wage" blinds more than reveals. A national MW is the MINIMUM someone can pay for unskilled labor no matter if an area is economically depressed or a floating high urban area. A set $15 might be pure gravy for that kid who gets $15 to sweep the garage floor and clean toilets in some small town... and it still might be survival wages for a mom and a kid in an urban area. Currently the highest MW in the nation is DC at $10.50. The highest states are CA and MA @ $10. NY and CA are moving to $15. CA is statewide and NY is exempting upstate and will go to $12.50... then it's wait and see. And we'll wait and see what happens.
What I fear is we've built an economy not only on a depreciating MW but one that sabotaged its own industrial base with free trade. That creates two dynamics. One is it gets rid of higher paying jobs that workers to leave MW jobs for and that competition put upward pressure on wages. And free trade created an escape hatch for companies to run from having to pay higher wages... but instead feeling a need to compete with nations that allow their populations to be exploited. I think we need to block that escape hatch or $15 will just cause more companies to leave. I don't know if you're old enough to remember the oil crisis of the 70s'. We had an economy addicted to cheap oil and there were painful adjustments when the price went up. Recessions were tightly correlated to price spikes in oil.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)you are sorry, alright.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Since clearly you can't rationally discuss this issue.
TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)or you used to prior to retiring, if you're retired.
I wouldn't expect someone who uses words like quintile to give a rat's ass about people who have to try to make ends meet on minimum wage.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)And I'd not expect anyone who's never run a business or made a payroll to understand that there are two parties in this equation... the worker and the one who has to pay them. And so you're free to wave your magic wand because it's not your money.
I know, I'm a terrible person who simply wants to go back to the highest MW we've ever had... 51% higher than today... and let states or cities that know an area can afford to go higher... do so.
So how many unskilled teens are going to get hired for $15 at a gas station in East Bumcake to sweep the floor and clean toilets?
TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)The question is what's a decent wage? You seem to believe that the HIGHEST the MW has ever been isn't enough even if it's 51% higher than it is today. The problem is that we're talking about a NATIONAL MW... not a regional one. And as such it has to make sense for EVERY region in the US... from a high flying city to some depressed backwater. But what's happened is under the guise of a living wage... and that $15 set in CITIES... people are trying to say that then can safely be applied EVERYWHERE. But who's going to hire a kid to sweep the floor in a garage and clean toilets for $15 in some depressed backwater when they may be scraping out a living at $25k? If the kid gets it... he's living high off the hog. If the employer was paying $7.25 s/he would have to cough up another a whopping $17,347 more a year, that includes $1248 extra a year for FICA. It's sooooo easy to just wave a magic wand and say.... hey... the owner of that gas station should pay that.
For a mom who's a waitress living in San Francisco... that $15 may still not cut it.
That high minded ideal for a "living wage" blinds advocates to this simple reality. Which is why I've advocated for the HIGHEST the MW has ever been as the national floor... states and cities can go above that if they want.
But we also have to remember that back in 1968 we had a protectionist economy. We have to close that escape hatch for US companies... and importers... else we're into uncharted territory.
TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)Food safety?
I would not expect anyone who's never run a restaurant to understand that there are two parties in this equation. The customer and the one who has to buy the food they are eating. And so you're free to wave your magic wand because it's not your money.
Sorry, but I like laws that protect consumers and workers. Owning a business is a privilege, not a right.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Just like driving a car is a right. The Constitution was based on the premise that the People retained all rights except what we surrendered to create government powers. But the very concept of liberty is that all rights can never be enumerated... so the presumption of rights always exists. So say otherwise buys into Scalia's restricted view on rights http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027725258
Government clearly has the power to regulate both driving and owning a business in the public interest... but that anyone who meets the requirements then HAS A RIGHT to drive or own a business. What YOU are saying is the government CREATED a right to drive or own a business... and that's dangerous territory.
If a business can't meet regulations such as food and worker safety laws... and a REASONABLE minimum wage, etc THEN it can be said it has no right to be in business.
See the difference?
What I'd say is NOT a right is when business gets freebies connected to incorporation such as free limited liability protection.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027733743
lunasun
(21,646 posts)it gives insight in to your prejudices
As a person of color I am very sensitive to stereotypes like the one above you are using about DU
No one here on DU could possibly run a biz or/and make profit ,,,??? because you know us all
And if we do own a small biz then we just don't understand,,,, & yes in the end it is my money!
Maybe your statement should have been
Just not greedy enough, or do not understand how to be fair to workers who make your biz what it is and still make a profit.
Oh I know, paying workers fair wage is why the business doesn't grow but it has been
Keep the lie going that it can not be done though...your masters approve and will give you no great reward
Your ignorance deserves an ignore.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)The key word there is "today". California's bill raises the wage gradually, starting at $11 this year, then stepping up to $15 over the next few years.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)But CA is tied with MA as the highest MW state currently. CA is already at $10 an hour so that's a 10% increase.
BUT NOT ALL STATES ARE CALIFORNIA. About half the states are still BELOW $8... and 19 are at $7.25.
I have no objections to states going above even that $10.95 which would represent the inflation adjusted 1968 MW. But we're talking about the national minimum for even unskilled teens in depressed areas of the nation. We know from BEA and BLS numbers the economy didn't suffer from that $10.95. Going to $15 for every area of the nation, rich or poor, dynamic or depressed, is really uncharted territory... especially since we no longer have a protectionist economy.
mac56
(17,574 posts)