What should the federal minimum wage be?

[BlueCheese]

Last edited Sat Jan 2, 2016, 07:52 PM - Edit history (1)

TL; DR: A $12 per hour minimum wage would already be the highest in U.S. history, even accounting for inflation. It would also be the second highest in the world, behind only the tiny enclave of San Marino, in terms of purchasing power. On the other hand, $15 would be so far beyond what's been tried internationally or at home that it risks significant unwanted consequences.

One issue of debate in the Democratic primary is raising the minimum wage. The current federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. All three of our candidates propose raising this significantly-- Clinton wants to raise it to $12 an hour, while Sanders and O'Malley propose raising it to $15 an hour.

Now, this sounds like an easy one-- isn't $15 more than $12? So Sanders and O'Malley are better, right? Well, not necessarily.

If it were that simple, people should be arguing for $20, or $50, or $100. But nobody is seriously proposing that. What would go wrong if we made it $100? Most directly, the cost of labor would increase so high that businesses would have to lay off all their employees or greatly raise prices. You wouldn't pay your babysitter $100 an hour-- you'd simply stop going out. Restaurants couldn't pay their staff that much-- either they'd be forced to close, or raise their prices hugely to compensate. Same for virtually everyone else. In the end, all the inflation would undo the effect of the new minimum wage, after a fair amount of upheaval.

So we can't simply raise the minimum wage to $100. But how high can we make it?

First, it's comforting to know that there likely is room to raise the minimum wage without economic disruption, despite what conservatives will tell you. In one very influential paper, economists David Card and Alan Krueger found that when New Jersey raised its minimum wage, job growth at fast food restaurants near the border with Pennsylvania was not at all negatively affected, nor was job growth at low-wage restaurants worse than at higher-wage restaurants within New Jersey.

This same Alan Krueger, by the way, was chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, and is considered one of the nation's foremost experts on labor economics and the minimum wage. What does he think? In a New York Times column, he argues that $12 would be a responsible level than will do more good than harm, but that $15 would venture too far be too risky, as it is "beyond international experience".

Probably due to space limitations, Krueger doesn't elaborate on what that means, but I tried to figure a little bit out on my own. The first question is, what do other countries have as their minimum wages? According to Wikipedia, by purchasing power, the world's highest minimum wage is in San Marino, at a equivalent of $12.55. Second is Luxembourg at $11.43, followed by Australia ($11.14), France ($11.01) , and Germany ($10.43). So $12, far from being miserly, would actually be nearly the highest in the world. And $15 would be so high than we're in the realm of potential serious unexpected consequences, in terms of unemployment or inflation.

Another way we might look at things is to see what the hourly wages are right now across the United States. After all, the cost of living varies widely from state to state, and often within the same state. San Francisco, with its high incomes and high real estate prices, could likely easily increase its minimum wage to $15 (in fact, it will do so by July 2018), but the nearby Central Valley might not. Now, here, I couldn't find a source that listed everything in a nice table, but the Bureau of Labor Statistics has a page where you can look up each state one-by-one.

Here are some states which I thought might have high median hourly wages, and some which I guessed would have lower ones.

New York: $19.65
Maryland: $19.63
California: $18.84
Rhode Island: $18.43
New Mexico: $15.29
Alabama: $14.83
West Virginia: $14.14
Mississippi: $13.76

What we see here is that there are entire states whose median hourly wage is less than $15. So far from being something that helps those at the lower end, a $15 minimum wage would affect more than half the workers in those states. With that kind of impact, and so few relevant real-world examples to study, it's really hard to know what effects unemployment or inflation would have there.

Editorializing for a moment:

Edit: Removed this section. I decided it wasn't helpful.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. 15.

We've had 40 years of crushing neoliberal economics and it is time to give everyone a raise, starting at the BOTTOM instead of continuing to hand billionaires more loot.

[BlueCheese]

2. Only $15? Why not $20?

[Warren Stupidity]

5. The people at the bottom of the heap are speaking quite clearly: 15.

How about we start listening instead of telling?

[BlueCheese]

6. Are you sure they wouldn't want $20?

I'll bet if someone took a survey, $20 would get more votes than $15.

[rhett o rick]

12. Actually $21 would be fairer. That's what it would be if adjusted for inflation.

http://inequality.org/minimum-wage/

Also, while the living wage in most states is about $12 per hour, that is for a single adult living alone. It's over $20 for an adult with children.

http://livingwage.mit.edu/

Those advocating $12 per hour min wage are making their corporate sponsors very happy.

By the way, raising the min wage would push up all wages at the bottom of the scale. Also, studies have proven that raising the min wage helps the economy, EVEN FOR THE FRACKING WEALTHY.

It's immoral to advocate slave wages while we have 50,000,000 Americans living in poverty.

[BlueCheese]

13. That link says the highest it's ever been adjusted for inflation is $10.55.

The $21 is if it kept pace with the rest of income growth.

But I see your $21 and raise it to $30. Why don't we make it $30?

[rhett o rick]

46. Seems you can't discuss this rationally and I am not surprised because you've taken

the Conservative stand of holding down wages. That isn't a Democratic position. It's better to help out our working poor by giving them a decent wage than giving them welfare. Raising the min wage boosts the economy and helps raise the prevailing wages.

Why do you want to hold down min wage? Help boost corporate profits?

[BlueCheese]

50. Raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $12.00 is not holding it down.

It's raising it to the highest minimum wage in the world (barring San Marino), and by a significant amount, the highest it's ever been in the US, indexed by inflation.

My point is that $12 is actually a very high minimum wage by world standards and historical standards, and that it's a very liberal position to want to raise it that high. Further, it's a number that the top economist on the minimum wage says is feasible.

[rhett o rick]

55. And my point is that $12 is an insult. It's not a living wage. Why not $15?

Who would be hurt? Walmart?

[BlueCheese]

59. Why hasn't France, or Germany, or any other country gone that far?

Most of us think of those countries (rightfully) as having better safety nets and treatment of workers than we do. But they've settled for less than $12.

The thing is that the living wage is a moving target. As the minimum wage rises, you increase the risk of employers firing employees or raising prices. Now, research has shown that doesn't happen very much where the minimum wage is now, which is why most Democrats support raising it. But as it goes higher-- and $15 is higher than it's ever gone, anywhere-- that risk increases. If you get laid off, the new minimum wage doesn't help you. If prices rise, what was supposed to be a living wage is no longer a living wage.

[rhett o rick]

66. Your arguements don't have anything to do with the morality of providing a living wage.

Let's see if I have your argument correct.
Europe doesn't do it so we shouldn't. I don't know anything about Europe and as far as I am concerned, I don't care.
The min wage adjusted for inflation is less than $12 (I don't believe this and will do more research) but again I don't care.
The living wage isn't constant therefore we should try to even come close.

I am disappointed that a Democrat would take your stand.

So you want to give a min wage of $12 or less and make up the difference with foodstamps?

[BlueCheese]

72. As Krugman likes to say, economics is not a morality play.

I'm simply saying that regardless of how good your intentions are, you might end up with unintended consequences of unemployment and inflation.

[rhett o rick]

82. Show me a study that says that raising the min wage causes unemployment and inflation.

I have seen the opposite.

Minimum wage increases put money in the pockets of low-wage workers who have little choice but to spend that money immediately in their local communities. Research has shown that raising the minimum wage boosts consumer spending, increasing the demand that drives economic growth.

A 2011 study by the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank finds that minimum wage increases raise incomes and increase consumer spending, especially triggering car purchases. The authors examine 23 years of household spending data and find that for every dollar increase for a minimum wage worker results in $2,800 in new consumer spending by his or her household over the following year.

http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/stimulus

Also see:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251571682

[BlueCheese]

84. Those are about raising the minimum wage from its current, low, value.

I agree that raising the minimum wage from where it is now is a great idea. The question is whether we can safely raise it all the way to $15. There, we don't have any data or experience.

For what it's worth, perhaps the one example we have where the minimum wage grew so sharply is what happened in Puerto Rico, after its minimum wage was pegged to that of the U.S. mainland.

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c6909.pdf

This paper seeks to answer these questions using diverse bodies of data on
employment and earnings in Puerto Rico and on the employment and earnings
of Puerto Rican migrants in the United States. It reports the following findings.
(1) The U.S.-level minimum altered the distribution of earnings in Puerto Rico
to an extraordinary extent, creating marked spikes that dominate
the earnings distribution. (2) Imposing the U.S.-level minimum reduced total
island employment by 8-10 percent compared to the level that would have
prevailed had the minimum been the same proportion of average wages as in
the United States. In addition, it reallocated labor across industries, greatly
reducing jobs in low-wage sectors that had to raise minima substantially to
reach federal levels. (3) Migrants from Puerto Rico to the United States are
drawn largely from persons jobless on the island, with characteristics that
make them liable to have been disemployed by the minimum wage. As the
Puerto Rican minimum rose toward U.S. levels, the education of migrants fell
below that of nonmigrants. (4) Migration was critical in allowing Puerto Rico
to institute U.S.-level minimum wages and played a major role in the longterm
growth of real earnings in Puerto Rico by reducing the labor supply and
raising the average qualifications of workers on the island.

[MFrohike]

228. Krugman also likes to blather on about the liquidity trap

After 5 years of droning about it, he has yet to read the first damn thing Keynes ever wrote about it. I get that everybody is high on him because of the kinda-Nobel, but Hayek and Friedman won it too. It's an award that has nothing, repeat nothing, to do with whether one is right or wrong. It is entirely about making economics look like a science, rather than the carnival sideshow it tends to be.

Krugman is also wrong for your quotation. Of course, economics is a morality play. It's nothing but the study of the moral choices made in the allocation of resources. It gets dressed up with faux math and nifty lingo, but the vast majority of it is nothing but explaining away bad choices as a result of impersonal forces (e.g., globalization, invisible appendages, etc.). The economy is very much the creature of our political choices. To pretend that it exists as some kind of natural force unto itself, as Krugman does, is simply stupid. It's a collection of social relationships shaped and driven by politics.

[Ed Suspicious]

152. Why? Neoliberal infections within their economies.

[BlueCheese]

172. Every country in the world has a neoliberal infection?

[Roy Ellefson]

221. because ...

because their social safety net is better than ours...in the US a big share of wages goes to pay for health insurance etc. the numbers are not comparable.

[Bradical79]

235. My guess would be vastly superior healthcare

and other superior aspects of their social safety net. Really, straight comparisons of minimum wage don't make a lot of sense to me since they don't exist in a vaccuum. While $15 is better than $12 I think they're both too low if we take into account other factors like cost of education, how easy it still is to be financially ruined by a health problem, and the state of social security and retirement plans for most Americans.

[MADem]

104. You disagree with Senator Warren, then. If twelve bucks is an "insult," you're gonna HATE ten

bucks and ten cents....! She sounds like she's willing to start there, along with seventy percent of the nation....


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7492473

[RichVRichV]

128. You sure read that a lot different than I do.

70% of Americans across this country support an increase of the federal minimum wage to at least $10.10 an hour. Republicans may vote to keep workers in poverty, but on minimum wage, the American people are Progressives.

How is quoting a poll that shows 70% of Americans support at least $10.10 an hour mean she's pushing for only $10.10 an hour? Maybe you missed the qualifier at least. Here, let me print it again - at least.


Here is EW talking about the minimum wage being $22 if it kept up with productivity. That doesn't mean she supports $22 minimum wage.


The best we can do is infer that she is for at least $10.10 an hour. How much more than that we don't actually know. She could be for $10.10, $12, $15, or even $22 an hour minimum wage. We don't know because she hasn't said.

[MADem]

139. Not sure what your point is there--the other poster was calling two bucks more than that

"an insult." That was my reference.

So I guess my Senator is insulting him....? Hell, if twelve bucks is an insult, ten must be an OUTRAGE!

She did more than quote a poll. She's a sensible person. She understands that we have to start somewhere. Not pout about "revolution" and pie-in-the-sky wage amounts that Congress will not pass.

The federal minimum wage is ALWAYS going to lag behind wage minimums in expensive cities. It has always been thus. It's not going to change with yelling and finger pointing.

My Senator understands what's achievable.

[rhett o rick]

129. I support a $15 min wage. I guess you support a mere $10.10. Sad when Democrats care more

about corporate profits than helping the working poor. A living wage is at least $20 per hour for a family with children.

HRC, Walmart, and 50 million in poverty. That's the status quo that some Democrats are voting to keep.

[BlueCheese]

131. Do you at least agree that it is possible to set the minimum wage too high?

That there's some value where it does more harm than good?

[rhett o rick]

205. I have never seen any articles claiming that. Maybe you can link me to one. nm

[BlueCheese]

206. I did link to one, above, about Puerto Rico.

But I'm asking a simpler question. Would you agree that raising it to $100 would be a bad idea? In other words, that it's not as simple as the higher, the better?

[MADem]

137. Ha ha ha--are you calling me Elizabeth Warren?

Let me join her under your bus~!

[rhett o rick]

211. No way. She is a progressive. She doesn't support the wealthy 1% to the

detriment of the working poor. Ridicule all you want, but sooner or later the People will throw out the Wealthy 1% that you seem to side with.

[MADem]

212. I don't "support the wealthy 1% to the detriment of the working poor" either.

I don't "seem to side with them." That's just your attempt to name call and be rude to me, for reasons which are clear only to you. I don't really know why you feel a need to invent scenarios about me, but I do see what you are doing and I will point it out.

And--unlike my Senator--I'm not a millionaire several times over, either. I doubt she's interested in exchanging her good life and secure future for sackcloth and ashes to please you--so don't hold your breath expecting to see her at the barricades in the fashion that you're hoping for.

But hey, keep on with the insults if that's your substitute for civil discourse--they say more about you than you realize.

[rhett o rick]

213. And keep on using that emoticon.

There are two sides to the class war. HRC openly supports Goldman-Sachs and the banksters. I am sure she feels for us but won't take any actions that would impair the profits of the corporations that back her.

50,000,000 Americans living in poverty because of the control of our government by the wealthy. If you think that by supporting the wealthy 1% that they will help the poor, our seniors, our vets, our troops, you are sadly mistaken. Their goal is profits for the 1%.

[MADem]

214. When you make obviously false statements about me, I have two options, really.

I can respond, childishly, in kind, with equally false, rude and unkind statements about you, or I can laugh at your sorry and obvious attempts to goad/bait and highlight them for all to note.

I am not a "one percenter" and your attempts to paint me as one to buttress your failed arguments ARE laughable.

Arguing your POV by calling me names is a lousy debate tactic. Or by using that over-used "BANKSTERS" word, like it's a magic spell to make people shut up. It's not. Hauling in the vets and the seniors? Why not the abandoned pets in high kill shelters, and bunnies with pancakes on their heads? Mish-mash is not the way to "win."

Elizabeth Warren is a smart woman. So's Hillary Clinton. When Elizabeth Warren endorses Hillary Clinton, you'll see two smart women doing what's best for our nation.

[rhett o rick]

220. I never claimed you were a 1%'er. Now who is misrepresenting.

It looks to me like you are choosing the side of the 1% that is backing HRC. If HRC wants to help those among us living in poverty, she will ask that we, the 99%, foot the bill. You do understand the concept of quid pro quo. The billionaires are backing HRC, not because they like her social agenda, but because they know she will help them get richer and richer.

I see it every day. I see more people showing up at our foodbank, and I see less and less donations because it's not the rich that donate it's the middle and working classes. I am sick of the wealthy 1% running our government. But apparently that's were we disagree.

[MADem]

225. You danced close enough to that fire to create a firestorm of misapprehension.

And here you are, doing it again, getting PERSONAL, and calling me a cheerleader for the wealthy.

It's like you are incapable of having a policy discussion without throwing shade.

I'm one of "those people" who donates to a foodbank--it's one of my few charities now that I have no time to work at the feeding center, because my thing now is helping crippled old folks who can't drive anymore get out and about. But hey, according to you I'm a cheerleader for the one percenters-- perhaps I do it in my fancy hand-me-down Rolls Royce that I got in payment for cheering on those rich people you're crabbing about, and I borrow a chauffeur from one of my "wealthy pals" to do all the driving while i take the credit. That was snark, in case you were unclear--I lack your facility in the milieu so it may have been difficult to detect.

And we do disagree on a lot--your rather vicious characterizations of Secretary Clinton top the list.

When she's President, you'll see that these were intemperate and utterly lacking in substance. Or maybe you will refuse to open your eyes--at the end of the day it won't matter what you do. She'll do a great job even if you don't "approve" of her.

[PowerToThePeople]

67. What inflation number?

The one where they remove any hyperinflation staples off of the list?

I see.

[Ed Suspicious]

174. Isn't that something, how they do that.

[tecelote]

34. +1!

You answered my question... what would it be if adjusted for inflation?

Of course everyone earning minimum wage would like $50 an hour but what should they be making if they were living as well as we have in the past?

As posted:
"Also, while the living wage in most states is about $12 per hour, that is for a single adult living alone. It's over $20 for an adult with children."

Then $15 to $20. That's the logical answer.

[BlueCheese]

36. The peak is actually $10.55 adjusted for inflation.

The $21 comes from a different benchmark, though I suppose one could argue that's a better one, if one were so inclined.

[tecelote]

39. My gut tells me different. I know it's not scientific but I lived through it.

When I was younger, you could survive alright on a minimum wage job.

Your $10.55 x 40 hrs/wk x 4.3 wks/mo = $1840.60 per month.

You can live on that wage in your car or a cardboard box under the bridge but it is not a living wage.

[BlueCheese]

40. That's a fair opinion.

It certainly doesn't seem like enough to me either.

[TexasBushwhacker]

178. It depends on where you live

In Manhattan or San Francisco you would have to live in your car. In Houston you could afford a one bedroom apartment. My 1 bedroom apartment, 685 sf, in an older complex, is $603 per month.

[Zynx]

151. Should every earner be earning a wage adjusted for if they had children?

That doesn't entirely make that much sense. Government benefits instead of higher mandated wages are a much more efficient and less distortive method.

[MeNMyVolt]

3. I doubt we'll see any increase.

Not with the House being run by lunatics for the foreseeable future.

In answer to your question, I'll take any increase, and it needs to happen now. And it needs to be indexed to inflation (avoiding future fights with do-nothing Pukes).

[bvf]

4. I'm completely confident that Clinton,

in her soft and squishy way, will do the right thing in accordance with her major donors' wishes.

[CharlotteVale]

9. +1

[StrongBad]

7. It's fine where it is.

A person isn't entitled to money just because they're alive.

Want to make more money? Provide value to someone. They will pay you what you're worth.

[MeNMyVolt]

15. That's a pretty bad reply.

I believe we as country need to ensure as close to a living wage as possible, regardless of what "you're worth".

[StrongBad]

41. No, you don't get a secure life just by showing up.

Resources are not infinite. There has to be some sort of efficient means of allocating them. Markets, like them or not, are the most efficient means of doing this.

Giving excessive resources to those that don't produce anything worthwhile is a recipe for societal collapse. There has to be negative outcomes so people can point to those outcomes and have them serve as a warning to others.

Not everybody is going to have a good life when there are finite resources. Some people are going to have a bad time. Better to have those people be the ones who minimally contribute to society as a whole.

[MeNMyVolt]

44. Look, I can get this on Yahoo board. Good luck to you and yours.

[StrongBad]

48. I appreciate your politeness. Best to you as well.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

105. "giving excessive resources to those that don't produce...is a recipe for societal collapse"

Spoken like someone who hasn't seen the fucking bonus check run at a bank. I have. You want to talk about excessive resources going to those who don't produce? Bring it, except don't bring the Republican version you started with--it's a steaming pile of shit. Let's talk about the actual drains on society instead.

[bvf]

16. They will? Why, had no idea!

Thanks for pointing that out.

Who do you like in the GE? Trump? Cruz?

[StrongBad]

42. Hillary actually. But don't agree with her 100% on things.

[bvf]

74. Your post appears to argue

against the very concept of a minimum wage at all.

To paraphrase, you're saying, "Trust employers."

We should probably outright ban unions and do away with child labor laws, too, since employers obviously know best, IYSO.

[StrongBad]

106. Unions are fine as they are a form of voluntary organization.

Mandatory minimum wage, not so much.

[bvf]

107. So you're against any minimum wage, then.

And you're reticence on child labor laws is particularly telling, as well.

[StrongBad]

108. It's not the 19th century anymore.

Industrialization and manual labor is on the way out for good.

[bvf]

124. That's entirely irrelevant.

What's your take on the prospect of a Burger King entirely staffed by twelve-year-olds?

Seems that that would suit you just fine, even better if they were paid $2.00 an hour.

Keep in mind, though, they'd be really high-performing twelve-year-olds.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. Yeah, and then taxpayers are on the hook providing "additional services" to people who work 40+ hrs

A week and are still below poverty level.

So we're subsidising McDonalds, etc. low pay policies and corporate profits. fuck that. If I want to subsidize mcdonalds I will buy one of their shitburgers and do it at the register.

It's not as simple as "provide value" - last time we let the unregulated free market alone determine what labor was worth in a complete regulatory vacuum, 7 year olds were put to work in coal mines and weekends didnt exist.

[StrongBad]

43. That's not cool either.

We have to give up this illusion that resources are infinite and that we can support any amount of people who allegedly can't take care of themselves.

Let's face facts. Life is harsh and there has to be negative outcomes when living in a world of finite resources.

Better to organize a society that rewards people who contribute rather than those that provide nothing of value.

Oh, and not sure if you've been paying attention over the past 50+ years but the blue collar worker is dead and never coming back:

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/95dec/chilearn/drucker.htm

[Warren DeMontague]

53. Right, but those burgers don't cook themselves.

Neither are all the services in our service economy performed by robots or other perfect platonic units of labor value.

It's not "people who allegedly can't take care of themselves"- again, you have millions of people working full time for jobs which pay them below the poverty level--- and to argue that they "provide nothing of value" is ludicrous, because fast food corporations, etc. are still turning a profit.

We subsidize these corporations as they putter along paying people peanuts, and they in turn keep the lower wheels of the economy turning.

[StrongBad]

58. Those burgers will start cooking themselves soon enough.

It is not the businesses fault that millions of people can't perform beyond the most basic tasks expected of a functioning human being.

[Warren DeMontague]

63. "I only know how to pay people to create new alloys!"

Dude, I like the free market, too, but let's not be facile and pretend that the invisible hand only ***** off the most meritocratically worthy.

[StrongBad]

69. Yeah but probably better solved by welfare than min wage

[Warren DeMontague]

71. You would seem to be contradicting yourself, there.

You're very adamant about society not enabling worthless what-have-you.. seems to me that a fair minimum wage is a far better way to encourage full-time work than welfare is.

And if you're right about robots doing all the burger flipping in the near future, then why would you even care? If the jobs are gonna disappear anyway, it makes no difference if the minimum wage is higher. Right?

[StrongBad]

76. Honestly, just to prevent riots from the hordes.

[Warren DeMontague]

78. And this is all preferable to simply telling McDonalds, etc. to pay their workers a living wage?

...really?

[StrongBad]

81. Capital flight is a thing. Government flight isn't.

[Warren DeMontague]

136. Ah, Capital Flight.. Like, McDonalds is going to take all their burger-selling operations to Mexico

and only sell them there?

Erm.... I don't really see how that works, either.

[Warren Stupidity]

145. You do know this is classic rightwing liberloon

bullshit, right?

[Punkingal]

20. What bullshit...

Do you think there should be no minimum wage at all?

[Warren DeMontague]

21. Haters gonna hate, atlases gonna shrug.

[StrongBad]

45. I really don't think it's necessary anymore.

In the past it was designed to prevent exploitation due to the harsh realities of industrialization and it is a remnant of a time when blue collar workers were the vast majority.

Now we are only a couple of decades away at most where blue collar workers will be all but extinct. The "knowledge worker" is the worker of the future so I feel it's of no use organizing a society around principles that don't apply anymore.

And as I mentioned previously, it's delusional to dream of a world of infinite resources. There has to be a means of allocation and markets that reward those who provide value to society are the best way of achieving that.

[Punkingal]

49. Who decides who provides value?

What an Orwellian notion.

[StrongBad]

57. The worker provides value to the employer.

The value of said employment is dependent on the worker's skills in solving the problem the employer needs solved.

Also, it is the employers responsibility to provide value to the customer.

Not Orwellian. Economics 101 actually.

[Punkingal]

60. That's great....

What a nightmare! Someone can work their butt off and because the boss doesn't like them, they don't provide any "value," hence they don't get paid as much a the Jackass who kisses the boss's butt? Right!

[StrongBad]

61. Yes because there's only one employer in the entire economy.

[Ed Suspicious]

175. I couldn't dislike your ideas more than I do now after reading this.

I need my Marx-blanky.

[BlueCheese]

24. Assuming you're not being snarky...

... that seems very out-of-line with what the Democratic Party believes in...

[rhett o rick]

52. I disagree. Maybe that's true in a world of Republicons or Libertarians, but

Democrats believe that no one should have to starve to death. We are a society that looks out for each other. The People and our resources are being exploited by the Wealthy 1% for their profits. You would deny a living wage to workers but I bet you support the looting going on by the Wealthy.

[StrongBad]

96. That's a nice thought but not reality.

[RichVRichV]

65. Not only is this view heartless it's also wrong.

Resources aren't becoming ever more stretched because we're consuming more per person, it's happening because the population keeps growing. The world is at 7 billion people and expanding.

Funny thing about this, the more affluent and educated a population becomes the less it grows. This has been proven throughout history across the world.

By increasing financial burden on a population your actually going to increase resource consumption through increased population. If you want to reduce resource use your time would be much better spent educating people on the true high costs of large families.

[StrongBad]

98. I disagree.

Poverty population expansion happens when people realize they don't have to be responsible for providing for their offspring and can rely on the government to get by.

Additionally you provide too much emphasis on education. The latest science shows you're pretty much stuck with the intelligence provided by your genes. Exterior factors like education provide minimal benefits to raw intelligence.

[RichVRichV]

111. You have got to be trolling.

There is no way you can sit there with a straight face and believe that. I'm not sure where you're getting your "science" from but there are a substantial number of studies on education vs population that show that fertility rates drop as education goes up (both when comparing between countries with different education levels and people with different education levels in the same countries).


Education, population growth, and human well-being - IIASA
Population, Education, and Development - UN



And your last paragraph is absolutely laughable. What you describe is called genetic memory, not intelligence. If it were true the way you stated then a newborn baby would be as intelligent as a college educated adult. Just because someone might have a genetic disposition towards learning something, it doesn't mean they will unless exposed to it. Education grants exposure to a wide range of subjects hence increasing our overall knowledge. I can pretty much guarantee you wouldn't be reading or writing on this site unless someone first taught you how to do it.

[StrongBad]

114. Here's a start to having your mind blown

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/10/genes-dont-just-influence-your-iq-they-determine-how-well-you-do-school

Several longitudinal studies of twins as well as ppl of similar iqs show intelligence is mainly genetic and minimally influenced by environment.

[RichVRichV]

121. It will take a lot more than that to blow my mind.

It's perfectly logical that genes play a large part in our ability to learn otherwise apes would be capable of being rocket scientists.


The study you point to shows that genes play a large part in ability to do well in school and different traits in learning, it does not state that we don't need to be educated have gain knowledge. You are conflating the two.


At no point does the study compare two twins at different education levels (but similar age) because school in the UK is compulsory to 18 (the study went to 16).


Try comparing the general knowledge of two twins from a third world country where one got to go to school (especially higher education) and the other didn't. Then you will see the large effect schools have on both learning and quality of life.

[beam me up scottie]

112. Wow. Just fucking wow.

Poverty population expansion happens when people realize they don't have to be responsible for providing for their offspring and can rely on the government to get by.

Are you sure you're on the right website?

[StrongBad]

115. Great use of a cliche phrase.

[beam me up scottie]

116. Great use of right wing talking points about poor people.

What's next, comparing them to animals?

[StrongBad]

117. Reality is harsh. Resources are finite. The future is dark. Get used to it.

[beam me up scottie]

119. So let them starve, amirite?

[StrongBad]

120. Can't compete? Not my fault.

[MeNMyVolt]

126. Please, stop with the picures.

You are so much better than that. You can slice and dice your responder with way less bandwidth.

[beam me up scottie]

138. I gave up, it's not worth disussing anything with someone who advocates survival of the fittest.

[hobbit709]

89. Are you a comedian in real life?

[StrongBad]

97. Great argument and rebuttal. 10/10.

[Stargazer99]

113. The system runs on money-if the damn system makes it impossible to be of monetary worth to those

that have wealth says something nasty about the monetary system

[Warren Stupidity]

144. Yikes.

[Roy Ellefson]

222. huh?

you are in the wrong place

[99Forever]

8. Another tone deaf OP from Camp Weathervane.

Complete with "adult in the room" lecturing for the little people.

Isn't that special?

Bless your heart.

[BKH70041]

10. $500 trillion

One hours work. Goodbye.

[Vattel]

11. It's misleading to compare it to many European nations

because one needs to take into account the fact that in many of these nations their healthcare and college expenses and so on are more fully funded by taxes, thus reducing the cost of survival and education, for example. Then again, some European cities are really expensive. Bottom line though: it is very difficult to make useful comparisons.

[yeoman6987]

77. Yes so if they make 8 dollars an hour, they take home about 4.50 an hour

When I was in Italy, a woman made 2300 euros a month but took home 1100 euros. But everything is free true except housing, transportation and food.

[Vattel]

83. and public transportation is often better, making car ownership less crucial

[yeoman6987]

86. Depending on where you lived

She lived 45 minutes from work with her parents at 34 years old at the time. This was in Sicily which is a bit more spread out.

[Zynx]

153. Isn't the logical thing, then, to be pushing for greater benefits and not higher mandated wages?

It's not entirely sensible to push for the entire bill to be paid by the employer. Not all employers have deep pockets. Just because they're an employer doesn't mean they're ExxonMobil.

[Warren DeMontague]

14. If people want to bleat on and piss/moan over "if 15 why not 20" then fine, make it 20.

If you're panicking at the thought of having to pay your paper hat burger flippers 15, maybe inane "spooky socialism" thought expermients about "oooh twenty" are a bad idea.

Yeah, twenty, we could go there too.

[BlueCheese]

17. The more I think about it, the more I think even $20 isn't enough.

You can't buy a house or raise kids on $20 an hour. How about we make it $30?

[Warren DeMontague]

19. Sure.

I know you think you're making some profound point here, but it sure as shit isn't "the minimum wage is just fine where it is"

[BlueCheese]

23. Obviously it's not fine where it is. Where did I say that?

I support raising it to at least $12-- where it would be the highest in the world except for the 50,000 people who live in San Marino.

But if the argument is simply $15 is more than $12, then $30 is more than $15. Maybe I'm being overly coy or snarky, but my point is simply that deep down, everyone knows that you can't just raise it arbitrarily high, before it leads to unemployment and inflation, despite all the good intentions behind it.

Once we agree to that, then we can start talking about what it should be. And what it should be is constrained by real-world limits. I'm just pointing out that $12 is already at the very limit of what's been tried anywhere else in the world.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. I would argue that 15 is more livable, equitable, and fair than 12.

To flip your point back on you, if your argument is only that 12 is better than 15, why isnt the current minimum wage- or, by extension, no min. Wage at all- even better than that?

I do not believe that 15 is way out of whack for either the world or our current business and labor climate.

[BlueCheese]

30. My argument is not that lower numbers are better.

Obviously $7.25 (where it is now) is too low to really live on; further, a lot of research has shown that in that range, raising the minimum wage doesn't have negative economic consequences. Obviously $100 is too high. I think everyone would agree on that too. In the middle is a range of workable numbers, with your preference dependent on how you weigh various factors.

I'm only pointing out that if you were doing a study to set the minimum wage from scratch, and you looked everywhere on Earth to see what every other country was doing, and you decided to essentially make the US minimum wage the highest of all of those, you'd end up with $12 (in terms of purchasing power). That far from being some sort of corporate-friendly miserly level, it's as far as evidence has suggested we can go without undue risk.

[Warren DeMontague]

51. I don't think 15 is inherently more "risky" than 12, personally.

And again, I suspect the metrics used to declare 12 in line and 15 over the top (and potentially inflationary, business-crushing, etc) are sort of arbitrary.

I guess my point is, if you have what you consider rational reasoning to prefer 12 to 15, isn't it possible that the rest of us have the same for the converse position, without it being just "hey more is better" (which is the core assertion of your OP)

[BlueCheese]

54. Sure, I will definitely concede that.

I guess I've seen a lot of things here and online that say, literally, "15 > 12" as the entire argument.

I just wanted to point out that there is a lot of reasoning that goes into the number 12, and that far from being a number that is friendly to corporations or whatnot, it's actually very high by any standard.

But certainly I will concede that rational people can disagree on this. (It's one reason I deleted the editorial section of my post.)

Thank you for the discussion.

[Warren DeMontague]

56. Peace.

[BKH70041]

22. I say $50

You need a pool. Food, shelter, clothing, pool. Makes sense.

[Warren DeMontague]

26. The peasants are greedy, huh?

It is so difficult to find good help nowadays, dah-ling.

[beam me up scottie]

70. Amazing, isn't it?

This board used to be full of folks who would fight for the burger flippers and now (at least in this forum) you'd think it was full of libertarians.

One guy even said he doesn't care about the health care crisis because he likes his insurance, his doctors and pays a reasonable amount for both.

[Warren DeMontague]

75. I thought WE were the libertarians!!!!

I know from experience on DU that I'm a libertarian doody-head, for instance, because I don't agree with Chris Christie on throwing pot smokers in prison, or with Rick Santorum on censoring internet porn.

"libertarian! Ewwww!"

Arguing that the free market should take care of the worthless undesirable burger-flippers is just good sensible social policy. Derp.

[beam me up scottie]

80. Get your memes straight, Bernie-bro, it's third way progressives!

All we care about is money, just like that Bernie what's-his-face.

Free stuff and a grossly unfair (to the corporations) $15/hourly wage means more dough to spend on purple gingham shirts, pot and ponies!

[Warren DeMontague]

140. Apparently if they have to pay workers too much, McDonalds will pack up and sell their burgers to us

from overseas.

[beam me up scottie]

141. And then we'll have to give the hordes of unemployed moochers welfare or they'll riot.

When they're not breeding like rabbits of course.

That's for the jury.

[neverforget]

102. This thread brought out the Libertarians

[Vattel]

183. I will see your twenty and raise you five more.

Not really. I don't know enough about economics to know what the ideal is. But I do know that economic justice demands more for the working poor than our system offers.

[Warren DeMontague]

207. I would agree with that.

[Warren DeMontague]

27. I keep hearing this stuff about how Sanders supporters are all soooper-seekrit libertarians

This thread would seem to indicate otherwise

[MeNMyVolt]

33. Have seen a couple of the replies in this thread? n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

47. That sentence doesn't make any sense.

[BlueCheese]

35. I certainly don't believe that.

I think most of them are good, solid liberals.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

28. I'm more interested in a minimum living wage, so something like this...

looks good to me

New York: $19.65 ($15 may not be a living wage)
Maryland: $19.63
California: $18.84
Rhode Island: $18.43
New Mexico: $15.29
Alabama: $14.83
West Virginia: $14.14
Mississippi: $13.76 (I'm assuming it's equivalent to $19.65 in NY)

[TeddyR]

29. Why do we even need a federal minimum wage?

Why not leave it to the states, since living wages vary so much from state to state? $12 an hour in Omaha goes a whole lot further than $12 an hour in San Francisco.

[BlueCheese]

32. Well, some states aren't interested in protecting their workers.

So the federal government has to step in and establish a national minimum wage, that other states can then build on.

Just like a bunch of GOP states rejected Medicaid expansion under the ACA...

[TeddyR]

93. Well

How do you determine what is best for workers in Topeka, San Francisco or Billings? I'm pretty sure the living wage will vary in each city, so why do we think Congress can determine what is appropriate, especially when Congress is largely ineffective?

[BlueCheese]

94. The current approach is for the federal government to set a floor...

... and for states to raise it if they want. Not every state will want to, but at least those residents will be getting more than $3 an hour.

[TeddyR]

103. Right

But what should the floor be? $12 would be ok for folks in Alabama, but is $12 ok for California or New York? And what about state differences -- the living wage in Needles, CA is a lot different than San Francisco. The federal government isn't the panacea you want it to be. State and local governments have way more impact and influence (as it should be).

[Warren Stupidity]

148. because mississippi and the rest of the fuckwad bullshit rightwing hellholes would have no min.

Last edited Sun Jan 3, 2016, 12:54 PM - Edit history (1)

and because really we are one nation stuck with a horrible compromise system set up by the Great Founding Fathers that already resulted in the worst war in our history and may result in another civil war down the road.

[jfern]

31. The Australian minimum wage is over $12 USD an hour.

If you want to talk purchasing power, the minimum wage in San Francisco is probably like $4 an hour. Even if you work every hour of the week at minimum wage in SF, you can't get housing for less than 30% of your earnings.

[Zynx]

160. Adjusted for purchasing power, because Australia has a higher cost of living, it's around $11.14.

Also, is it sensible to set a minimum wage equal to what it takes in your highest cost cities? That seems like an odd proposal.

[jfern]

216. $17.29 AUD is definitely more than $12 USD

[TheFarS1de]

230. It sure is .

It's worth about $12.47 USD . And they get healthcare as well for that money . How do they manage without the sky falling in ?

[Zynx]

233. The exchange rate is *NOT* equivalent to cost of living.

I feel like I shouldn't even have to explain that. Prices in Australia are considerably higher than in the US. In a purchasing power parity calculation, their minimum wage is actually lower than $12. Look it up.

[jfern]

236. San Francisco is probably more expensive than anywhere in Australia

So that would kill that argument.

[Keefer]

37. Who says the federal government has

the authority to even set a minimum wage?

[MeNMyVolt]

38. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Look it up.

Some of the replies on this thread are stomach churning.

[Keefer]

90. Nothing in the

constitution gives the federal government any power to regulate wages.

[MrMickeysMom]

62. I think we've all seen the graph of stagnant wage compared to relative corporate growth...

We're flat, they're off the charts and the disparity of income is obscene.

We should be easily at $20/hour. That's a little less than I make after 40 years in the field as a credentialed and licensed respiratory care practitioner. I've contributed a lot towards making the health care industry deliver good care. From that effort working in 3 different states, I never once got collective bargaining power (thought I fought for it in FL). I never got compensation after seeing what effects some of the disease exposure had on my own life.

The motherfucking insurance industry owns us and Congress is owned by every lobby in control of their re-election purse.

Enough.

[Douglas Carpenter]

99. "a credentialed and licensed respiratory care practitioner"

Hey, I'm one of those too....

[MrMickeysMom]

118. I can't believe it's taken this long for THAT connection!

I love your signature "He's not an asshole", BTW!

[MichMan]

100. Everyone now making over minimum wage will want an increase too

Let's say you are right, and it goes to $20/hr. That would be approx. 2x the current min. wage. and as you stated you now make a little over that. If you got the same % increase, your wage would be $40/hr.

It wouldn't just be the people making current min wage that would get an increase, everyone else would expect one too. Great you say, everyone should be making more $$, right? Not so fast

I work for an auto parts supplier (not a manager); it is harder work than most minimum wage jobs and wages are now about $13/hr. If minimum wage was doubled, we would need to double ours as well to $26/hr. If we kept it at the $20/hr minimum, our employees would quit and find an easier job. Why run a manufacturing press when you could work at Taco Bell for the same wage?

Unfortunately, our customers would most certainly find a supplier in China before they would accept a big price increase. Profit margins in this business are pretty low.

Many service jobs can't be outsourced, but most manufacturing ones can. While it does need to be increased, $20/hr is too much and would have severe economic consequences for many employers I'm afraid

[TeddyR]

109. My sister owns a very small business in NC

With fewer than 10 employees, several of whom are family members. I assume her business would be exempt from this proposed federal minimum wage?

[TeddyR]

190. $20 an hour for working at Taco Bell?

That's ridiculous and (thankfully) would never pass.

[MichMan]

195. Multiple posters here advocating for that very thing n/t

[MrMickeysMom]

224. I'm not telling you that is what it could be...

... I'm telling you that given the trend of industry profit and the disparity of how that's distributed on the chart across time, minimum wage has not traveled that same trend. It has remained FLAT... thus the disparity of income. If wages had followed that same trend, then it would be $20.

Somehow, this gets interpreted differently. Maybe you should just look at the data.

http://www.epi.org/publication/safety-net-savings-from-raising-minimum-wage/

[corkhead]

64. Enough so anyone working full time

Would earn enough to not be a poverty statistic

[PowerToThePeople]

68. GDP divided by population.

eom

[Zynx]

154. Why does that inherently make sense?

[PowerToThePeople]

208. Because it is the just way

to distribute things.

If we want to take current capitalism to the end-game, think of it as one corporation, where every citizen is equal shareholder and all get the same dividend on the profits from the nation.

[Kalidurga]

73. I am fine with 12 in most places.

Cities need to pay higher wages though as the cost of living is much higher. Typical 2 bedroom is well over 900 a month in the Twin Cities. A one bedroom isn't much better it's well over 600 a month. So, a single person would need at least 12 just to barely get by.

[BlueCheese]

79. This thread will self-destruct in a few minutes.

I've decided it breaks my New Year's resolution to not post things that are divisive. I meant for it to be informative, but it hasn't turned out that way. I may try to rewrite it in a more neutral way later.

Sorry about that.

[BlueCheese]

87. Decided not to self-delete.

But will still apologize for the unintended arguments it started, especially my part in them.

Happy new year, everyone.

[DanTex]

85. Good post, but it's impossible to get Hillary bashers to understand this.

There's a big logical black hole there when it comes to this topic.

[hobbit709]

88. $12/hr here in Austin won't even pay the rent.

[Douglas Carpenter]

91. ideally, it should be staggered according to cost of living in different

locations just as Cost Of Living Allowances (COLA) are staggered according to location. I think if we take a look at some European countries we can find some examples of how minimum wages are adjusted for different locations and in some cases different professions.

[Adrahil]

123. This is correct. NT

[quickesst]

92. Without looking at one single reply.......

.... I can say with confidence that there will be many here who will never see the logic in your op. Now, let's see if I'm right.

On edit: Only took the first 10 to confirm my claim. I'm shocked I tell ya, just shocked!!

[LWolf]

95. Whatever it takes to be a living wage in its own region. nt

[MichMan]

101. Wouldn't jobs follow the lowest wage regions then?

If minimum wages varied regionally by cost of living, wouldn't a lot of jobs leave the higher cost areas and move to lower cost of living regions?

[Douglas Carpenter]

134. not necessairly. Wages are already higher in NYC or San Francisco

than in lower rural Alabama. We are mostly talking about service professions where certain jobs are going to be necessary to fulfill the needs of those working in better paid professions such as manufacturing or the higher end of service professions. It is jobs like nurses aids and fast food workers who are needed everywhere that are most likely to see an increase. It is not that the majority of jobs will be directly affected by this - but a significant minority of underpaid workers who are subsidizing the economy by working for less than the norm.

Of course adjustments in minimum wage would have to be phased in. It would be too disruptive to the economy to do it in one sweep.

[MichMan]

149. All wages would rise proportionally

Why would it only apply primarily to service professions? A $15/hr minimum wage hits everyone especially those currently making between the current minimum wage and the new increased one.

Manufacturing wages in my state typically run $11-$15 per hour. It is harder work than fast food or retail. All those workers would also need higher wages proportionally. Those will be the jobs that end up moving to China or Mexico. Is there much manufacturing in NYC or San Francisco?

The manufacturing base of Michigan is the auto industry. Most of that is with smaller parts suppliers scattered throughout the state in smaller towns not large urban areas. Those companies already operate on thin profit margins and have to compete daily with suppliers in Mexico and China. Our customers already do business with suppliers overseas routinely and an increase in labor costs of 30-50% would accelerate that exponentially

My plant pays approx. $13/hr vs the current minimum wage of $10. If minimum wage goes to $15/hr., we would need to pay in the $18/hr range. Otherwise, if we also paid $15, people would quit and work at the local Wal Mart instead as the work is easier.

[Laffy Kat]

110. Fifteen to start. nt

[Starry Messenger]

122. I think we should go for $15, since by the time we actually get the chance to do this

it will have to be. We probably won't get control of the legislature for an election cycle past the Presidential.

(What I would like is for people to quit lying by misdirection about what HRC advocates, which is for $15 in high COL areas, and $12 for federal level. (I still disagree with her, as I noted above, but she is for improving the wages up to $15) Having higher regional minimum wages are becoming an organizing trend, and if areas need a higher number, these measures are often very successful in elections.)

[Sequinn]

125. Much higher than it is now...

I tell you that much.

[taught_me_patience]

127. 10

probably the maximum without seriously hurting small business. Any higher, and jobs start getting cut.

[Luminous Animal]

130. $22 an hour and a guaranteed wage.

[BlueCheese]

132. What do you mean by a guaranteed wage?

[Luminous Animal]

133. Dismantle the entire welfare system and provide a base wage for all

U.S. citizens. Nixon actually considered it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

135. In 1972 this was actually supported by both President Nixon and by Senator

McGovern. Although you can guess which one supported a higher guaranteed annual income. In fact the founder of modern conservative economics, Milton Friedman strongly supported the concept. It is not some radical notion. The question is working out where we draw the line on the lowest level we can allow people to fall.

Of course adjustments in minimum wage would have to be phased in. It would be too disruptive to the economy to do it in one sweep.

[Zynx]

156. $22 an hour? Every single job has to be paid essentially at least $45,000 a year?

That's madness. How did you even come up with that?

[MichMan]

168. That would be for doing nothing

The proposed guaranteed income would be for just doing nothing. I assume people working 40-50 hours per week would then need to be paid a lot more.

[Zynx]

176. Exactly. The guaranteed minimum income has always been proposed as a barebones safety net.

Not a middle class income.

[Scuba]

142. If you're willing to settle for $12, you should start the negotiation at $15 or higher.

If you're OK with keeping it $7.25, or even lowering it, it would make sense to start the negotiation at $12.





Funny how those who say raising the minimum wage would inflate prices never make the same argument about CEO salaries.

[99Forever]

143. What sort of "Democrat" argues against a living wage?

Obvious is obvious.

[TexasBushwhacker]

146. Perhaps we should do something like Australia

Australia has an absolute minimum wage, but anyone who is a "casual employee" is paid an additional 15 to 25% per hour to make up for their lack of regular hours, paid holidays and paid time off. This encourages employers to give their employees regular schedules and benefits.

As for whether or not a $15 an hour minimum wage is appropriate, just accounting for inflation since 1968 the minimum wage should be about $10.75. If you add in the increase in worker productivity the minimum wage should be $18.70. Look how closely the minimum wage followed increases in worker productivity up until 1973.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://www.carlagoldenwellness.com/2015/09/21/why-bernie-sanders-has-my-vote/&h=273&w=499&tbnid=HiuTeBP90R5OsM&tbnh=166&tbnw=304&usg=__n6QX5zBa27Fg_rKIODiwwu8SK08=&docid=3hBqTdjropLPJM

I realize these increases don't happen overnight, but it seems to me that having a target of $15 isn't unreasonable. They could raise the minimum to $9 immediately, then an additional 10% + the rate of inflation every year; probably a total of 12 to 15% per year.

[MichMan]

157. The productivity increases vary wildly by industry

Inflation, yes, but also using the overall increase in productivity to determine wage increases ignores that fact that those increases vary wildly by sector and within sectors for that matter. Some sectors saw massive gains in productivity due to technology while others have not. I have worked in manufacturing most of my life.

A manufacturing company buying a $250K machine that can make parts 25% faster than the 20 yr old current machine, doesn't mean the machinist automatically should get a 25% raise.

[99Forever]

159. So all increases to productivity should go to sit-on-their-ass-and-do-nothing upper management?

WTF kind of Democrat are you?

[Zynx]

161. No, but the basic point is that you can't provide a uniform adjustment based on productivity.

If wage increases in an industry consistently outpace its growth in output per hour, that industry will have a crisis. Industries vary so wildly in productivity gains that making a uniform adjustment across the whole economy would be disastrous.

[99Forever]

165. Same gawddamn bullshit excuses that have been use to keep their...

... foot on the throats of working people since the dawn of time.

Why are you here shilling for the .01%?

Explain yourself.

[Zynx]

181. I'm not. I do work in public policy analysis and I'm concerned about overly simplistic policies.

Saying that there is a 4% increase in inflation and productivity economy-wide and therefore all wages in all industries must come up by 4% is not a sensible approach. One of the things we always emphasize in public policy analysis is to avoid one-size fits all policy prescriptions across individuals and sectors of the economy.

Say revenues in a particular industry are only growing 1-2% and you say wages have to come up 4%. How long can that actually be done?

This is why taxes and benefits are the superior system to mandated wage levels.

[99Forever]

182. If they can't can't pay their workers a decent livable wage...

... I don't give one shit if they go under. Tough. The void will be filled by someone that can and will.

[Zynx]

184. That could, over time, be an entire industry that we would no longer have.

Furthermore, in general what would be left would be larger companies that have the profits to absorb the hit. You would inadvertently cause there to be fewer firms. I don't think that's entirely desirable.

[99Forever]

188. You a big fan of buggy whips?

I don't give a damn that they aren't a major industry anymore. As to "larger companies absorbing" smaller ones, isn't what anti-trust laws are supposed to regulate? Too fucking bad NEITHER major political "party" has seen fit to use those laws to PROTECT US.

You think that's just some happy fucking coincidence?

[Zynx]

189. Wait...what? If an industry goes under because its products aren't desired anymore, that's one thing

It's another to price it out of existence because its sales are growing slowly compared to other industries. It makes little sense to scale retail wages to productivity gains being driven by IT, for example. If you have 30-40 years where an industry is having its minimum wage being raised by 1-2% above its actual productivity gains, that could be very harmful.

Setting it at a rational level and indexing it for inflation is much more sensible.

If you had any idea of the level of progressive taxes and benefits I support, you wouldn't be so confrontational toward me.

[99Forever]

193. Funny thing about those "scale wages to" scams...

... they always seem to come out in favor of the .01% at the expense of working people. EVERY FUCKING TIME.

What other line of Republican bullshit are you gonna try and sell me?

Cuz I sure as fuck ain't buying what you've come up with so far.

[Zynx]

196. I would suppose that attempting to call for civility is a Republican line, too?

Yes, I suppose being in favor of a 60%+ increase in the minimum wage and setting capital gains tax rates equal to ordinary income rates and raising taxes by 10-15 percentage points on income over $500,000 makes me a real Republican. Of course, you never did bother to ask my full range of policy positions. Instead, you decided to just heap insults because I have real economic policy concerns about what you are proposing.

Good day to you and calm down. It's bad for you to be this angry all the time.

[99Forever]

198. Do I sound angry?

Why would you suppose that would be?

You seriously think telling people who are getting totally fucked over by a corrupt system of greedy, lying, sleazy politicians to "calm down" is an effective way to change their minds?

Really?

Tone deafness is reaching plague proportions.

[Zynx]

199. Personally insulting people who want the same end goal as you but disagree slightly on means...

is not productive.

You and I want people to enjoy a similar guaranteed standard of living. We are simply in disagreement about method. I do think realities about disparities in regional costs and productivity levels of industry argue for a different approach, one that has been used in many countries, than simply raising the minimum wage to the sky.

[99Forever]

200. $15 hr.

"...raising the minimum wage to the sky."

No sir, you do not align with me. We quite clearly have two VERY divergent views of reality.

[Zynx]

201. You had been arguing for something far higher than that.

That would be a ridiculous level to raise it to. If you grow it with inflation plus productivity, you're ultimately calling for something much much higher.

I assure you, what I want for universal benefits would be far more generous, but it would be paid for through those who can pay for it, not just some crude policy rammed onto the country regardless of circumstances by industry and region.

[99Forever]

202. That simply isn't true.

I have NO WHERE called for a minimum wage higher than $15 hr at this time.

And why shouldn't minimum wage go up with inflation? What the fuck is wrong with that? Do you even read your stuff before you post it? Low wage workers aren't affected by inflation? Geebus Effen Cripes.

[Zynx]

209. You jumped in to defend linking it to inflation plus productivity.

Also, you don't read what I've written. I said I support raising it and linking it to inflation. I said I oppose linking it to economy-wide productivity on top of that.

Of course, you're too rude and popping off to read it.

[99Forever]

204. This also brings up another obsurdity.

How in the world are you going to get "universal benefits (that) would be far more generous" when you don't think we can get a livable minimum wage?

Perhaps like we got "health care for everyone" that actually is mandated expensive health INSURANCE that benefits corporations far more than us? Remember how POTUS and the Democrats fought so hard to get Single Payer passed? Yeah sure. "Universal benefits," indeed.

[Zynx]

210. Because they are far less disruptive than a single very high minimum wage.

You can extract the funds to pay for them through progressive taxation rather than what is a defacto flat per capita tax on employers of all shapes and sizes to make up the difference.

Rather than simply attacking me, maybe you should realize that I'm actually well-intentioned, have through the matter, and have something useful to contribute. Of course, it's more fun to mischaracterize what I've said and personally insult me while professing your outrage.

[99Forever]

218. More like they are much easier to promise while campaigning...

Last edited Sun Jan 3, 2016, 10:55 PM - Edit history (1)

.. then come up with a bunch "adults in the room" bullshit excuses for not delivering on them. No thanks, we've heard enough of that fucking song and dance. Higher wages to workers have an IMMEDIATE positive affect on everyone, INCLUDING employers.

Save your Turd Way bait and switch for Camp Weathervane and it's neoliberal residents.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

[Zynx]

226. You've got me. I'm part of a vast conspiracy to oppress the working and middle class.

I suppose careful policy analysis is just chopped liver. No value to it at all. Just go on what you feel is right. One of the attractions of the Democratic Party is that it actually is a good home for people who care about policy specifics and data. I pray that it continues to be.

I could say that I favor a guaranteed minimum income of $40,000 a year funded via progressive taxes and you would disagree with it. It's kind of staggering.

[99Forever]

232. False promises are false.

We don't need help "nuanced in" over the next decade. We need it right now.

5 fucking years I waited for promised health care. What I got was expensive, MANDATED, health INSURANCE I couldn't afford to use.

We are on to the con and we ain't playing anymore.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

Capice?

[MichMan]

163. Very simplistic thinking

Perhaps the increases in productivity were necessary for the company to remain in business and provide product at a price their customers were willing to pay.

In my state we rely on the auto industry for a good portion of our jobs. While everyone associates that with GM, Ford, and Fiat Chrysler, the vast majority of jobs is with parts suppliers. I am employed by one of them. Competition for new business is cut throat and we have to compete with competitors in China and Mexico daily. Profit margins are generally pretty low.

Our customers not only expect competitive prices before a bid is awarded, they also expect price reductions on existing parts.

The only way to achieve that and remain in business is to increase productivity. If not, the customers have no qualms about resourcing to overseas suppliers. If that occurs, not only does our plant close, a lot of people in our small town lose their service jobs as well.

[99Forever]

166. "Simplistic" my ass.

Where the fuck do working people figure into to your corporate shilling bullshit? There to be used, abused, then ground into the dirt when they stop lining the pockets of the "ruling class," right.

WAKE THE FUCK UP! There is a class war and we're tired of losing.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

[Zynx]

158. Serious problem: Worker productivity hasn't increased evenly across industries.

If you push up the minimum across industries by the same amount, in some industries the wages will far outstrip productivity gains. That's not an idle concern. That's a very serious one.

[TexasBushwhacker]

170. I understand that

But you can't ignore the fact that increases in worker productivity and the minimum wage followed very closely up until 1973. Did I suggest an increase to $18.70 to incorporate ALL the increases in worker productivity? I did not. If increases in productivity are consistent throughout a particular industry, then have an industry specific productivity "factor" for the minimum wage. Some industries may have an average increase of 25%, some 75%, some 150%.

An increase to a $15 minimum wage, in stages, would incorporate a productivity increase of 40% over the inflation increase of $10.75. A $12 minmum wage would only incorporate a 12% productivity increase.

So the question is, how low do you go? Perhaps we should require no less than 38 hour schedules for full time hourly workers. Perhaps we should have that "casual worker" premium. Perhaps we should join the rest of the developed world an require paid vacation, sick leave and maternity leave, and of course healthcare for all.

FWIW, as a former teacher, I don't want to do anything that would encourage kids to drop out of high school. I would not have a problem with a lower wage for workers who are under 20 years of age.

[BlueCheese]

179. Are you sure that's the minimum wage in that chart?

The link seems to be broken, but it looks more like median personal income, or something like that. If nothing else, the minimum wage is a lot choppier, and has gone down over time.

[Zynx]

186. You are definitely right. That's not minimum wage.

[TexasBushwhacker]

187. It's average hourly compensation

of production and nonsupervisory workers. Here's a better link.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/02/why-the-gap-between-worker-pay-and-productivity-is-so-problematic/385931/

[BlueCheese]

191. Thanks-- interesting read.

[MineralMan]

147. It should be what it has always been - a floor wage

that is the very minimum any worker can earn. It needs to be set at an amount that makes sense nationwide. Anyone, of course, can pay workers more than that, and states can set a higher minimum if they choose to do so.

There's no single number that will work everywhere.

[Zynx]

162. How about that? Something sensible.

[MineralMan]

164. I keep trying to be sensible.

I'm told that makes me a conservative. Odd, huh?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

150. Alan Krueger's thoughts are worth looking at.

There should be a minimum wage. It should be set as high as possible, keeping in mind the level it is set at doesn't do more harm than good.

[tazkcmo]

155. 12 is enough.

Be happy with that, get back to work and stfu! Oh, and vote for me!









sarcasm

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

167. $15 is, at least, a start.

[Ferd Berfel]

169. What ever it is it must be adjusted for inflation - ANNUALLY

[Todays_Illusion]

171. This is essentially conservative propaganda and I wish I weren't seeing it on DU. nt

[BlueCheese]

173. Respectfully, raising the minimum wage to the highest in the world is not conservative propaganda.

Raising it to the highest level in history is not conservative propaganda.

I don't think there are any Republicans who are out there supporting a $12 minimum wage.

[Zynx]

177. Apparently supporting a 60%+ increase in the minimum wage makes one a fascist.

I find it a little odd myself.

[jmowreader]

219. Sixty percent?

$7.25 to $15 is more than doubling the wage.

[Zynx]

229. Increasing it to the vicinity of $12 is deemed unacceptable. That's a 65.5% increase.

[jmowreader]

231. Deemed unacceptable by who?

The GOP, who thinks it should be abolished entirely and employers should be free to pay a buck an hour...

or the Bernie Sanders supporters, who think anything less than $15 per hour is an atrocity?

[Zynx]

234. The Sanders supporters.

The Republicans find it unacceptable as well, I suppose, but we already knew that.

[99Forever]

180. Yes it is.

Next up, we'll be served a heaping helping of just how wonderful the "Job Creators" are and how we should feel oh-so-privileged to serve them and just stfu and eat our gruel.

That IS the neoliberal Turd Way agenda.

[Reter]

185. I make $18.75

I work 5 days a week, and usually get around 8-12 hours of overtime in. It's enough to pay my rent and have some fun ($400 car bill a month). For me it's ok, but it's rich to a 16 year old.

So I'd say about $15 or $16 an hour minimum. That's good for many. Not me, but many others.

[EndElectoral]

192. Elizabeth Warren on minimum wage

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/elizabeth-warren-minimum-wage_n_2900984.html

Elizabeth Warren: Minimum Wage Would Be $22 An Hour If It Had Kept Up With Productivity
Huffington Post by Nicholas Wing

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) made a case for increasing the minimum wage last week during a Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions hearing, in which she cited a study that suggested the federal minimum wage would have stood at nearly $22 an hour today if it had kept up with increased rates in worker productivity.

"If we started in 1960 and we said that as productivity goes up, that is as workers are producing more, then the minimum wage is going to go up the same. And if that were the case then the minimum wage today would be about $22 an hour," she said, speaking to Dr. Arindrajit Dube, a University of Massachusetts Amherst professor who has studied the economic impacts of minimum wage. "So my question is Mr. Dube, with a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, what happened to the other $14.75? It sure didn't go to the worker."

Dube went on to note that if minimum wage incomes had grown over that period at the same pace as it had for the top 1 percent of income earners, the minimum wage would actually be closer to $33 an hour than the current $7.25.

...

And this was from March 2013.

[BlueCheese]

194. From your link...

It didn't appear that Warren was actually trying to make the case for a $22 an hour minimum wage, but rather highlighting the results of a recent study that showed flat minimum wage growth over the past 40-plus years coinciding with surging inequality across a number of economic indicators.

Warren went on to argue that raising the federal minimum wage to over $10 an hour in incremental steps over the next two years -- a cause championed by President Barack Obama in his State of the Union address and since taken up in the Senate -- would not be as damaging for businesses as some critics have argued.

[EndElectoral]

197. Yes, and that didn't happen. She was asking for a nominal increase and couldn't get that.

The focus of that last section you post is about what would be "damaging for business" but the article demonstrates just how damaging the lack of the minimum wage increase has been to the minimum wage worker in terms of real wages, rather than to the 1%.

I think the $15 proposal not only helps to make up for these years of inequity, it helps put money directly back into the economy as lower earners tend to spend more, simply because they have to, hence it functions to stimulate the economy rather than lead to a kind of lending spending that helps banks, but not the consumer.

[deathrind]

203. That number should be...

Whatever it needs to be for any given geographical location in the states for a family to be able to live with housing/clothing/food/education (thru college) + a vacation each year at the very least on a singal parents income.

[jmowreader]

215. $12 at minimum, and indexed to the cost of living in each area

In Kootenai County, Idaho, $15 per hour is unreasonably high. Very few non-professional types pull down that kind of money here. OTOH, a person who makes $15 in San Francisco will still be living in a van down by the river.

I think we need different minimum wages for different areas. I also think $12 per hour would be a good wage for places like South Idaho, Wyoming and Nebraska where rents and food prices aren't super high.

[Zynx]

217. Yeah, this stuff where we talk about solving this through a single national number is nonsense.

Economic realities around the country vary considerably. I'm always reminded of the fact that a Taco Bell lunch in Penn Station in NYC set me back $15 whereas the same lunch cost me about $7.50 in Wisconsin.

[Roy Ellefson]

223. except in Wisconsin

$15 an hour is not even a living wage in Wisconsin--I know I live here...a federal minimum wage of $15 per hour is the starting point.

[Zynx]

227. Depends where. Madison, no. Places like Milladore in Wood County? Absolutely.

Not for a family of four, but I don't think that's a reasonable standard.

[Hekate]

237. Regional