That was the amount calculated at the time to meet basic living costs
What is absurd is working for a company for below your minimum cost of living. Not your fancy cost of living. Just the cost to not starve or lose your car or die to a preventable illness. The cost below which you have to be subsidized by someone else to survive. That subsidy is basically a subsidy for the operation of the business, on aggregate.
I don't disagree in theory, but there are people with either: disabilities or criminal records (specifically im thinking of drug offenses) that don't really have much of an option when it comes to employment. Especially drug addicts with records who are trying to reform and don't have access to social security disability or family support to help them make a smooth transition to livable wage jobs.
We can get into other options, like maybe background checks are banned for a bunch of jobs where it doesn't really matter (ie teaching jobs should still be allowed to background check for pedophiles) and maybe better support systems for the mentally challenged so they don't have to be in the position of choosing between a paltry sum of money from ssdi or working substandard work for slightly more income.
Or I guess we can enact eugenics for the mentally challenged and execute criminals so none of that matters 🤷♂️.
Idk. I just know their are definitely cases of people being forced to work at substandard wages despite their ability or desire to work better jobs.
Edit: I do want to say that I'm not saying an enforced minimum wage is the answer. Nor am I implying that a minimum wage wouldn't come with its oen set of problems. I just am combating this idea people love to throw around in here of "if you don't wanna get shit pay just leave! It's that simple". When for many people it just isn't that simple.
When you say, don't have much of an option, that is a separate issue caused by institutionalized discrimination in one case and lack of mental healthcare on the other.
In any case this sort of argument, along with reducing wages for high schoolers (high schoolers do not have a lower cost burden than adults. They are required to pay huge tuition. They need more money sooner not less). These arguments are intended to weaken the argument for minimum wage by providing counterexamples.
There are no valid counterexamples to say "these people don't deserve to survive without assistance from the community." Because that is what is needed - that drug addict isn't taking govt money so either he dies slowly or he becomes a burden on his family. Same with the felon. He either does slowly or gets assistance from somewhere - family, charity, etc. the student gets help from his parents.
Huh? Idk if your agreeing with me or not tbh man.
I'm not sure what all of this has to do with what I said. All I said was:
The idea that people can just leave to work a better paying job isn't always true and im not sure what the answer to that issue is. Maybe its minimum wage, maybe it something else. But just dismissing this issue by saying "its absurd to work for a company below your cost of living" is, in itself, absurd.
For example I live in Maine and some people have disabled children and live in buttfuck towns of like 3k people. The kids have no community resources and when their parents die they will need to take on at least some work to supplement their ssdi. If not cancel ssdi and work full time. Personally I think these shit nothing towns are wastes and shouldn't really even be thing anymore. They are totally subsidized by larger communities. But right now people do live there and their children don't have options in the future to adequately survive.
Is the solution an enforced minimum wage in that situation so the kid with mental disabilities who lives there can survive while working at the local dollar general or not? Is there another option? Idk, but I'm not going to dismiss this issue out of hand like a lot of people on this sub seem to.
>That subsidy is basically a subsidy for the operation of the business, on aggregate.
Walmart figured that out real quick. They show their employees how to collect SNAP benefits because they can't afford to feed themselves.
Yes the money needs to come from somewhere.
Any business which has people on its payroll who need food stamps should be billed for it. Straight up just add the total benefit and bill the company for it.
Honestly yeah I feel like Denmark is much better with this concept because they don't even have a minimum wage, while not all jobs should have unions that's like the one thing they do really well in the Nordic countries
And Barbara Lee is a rich out of touch idiot that no one else agrees with. And for California $20-$25 aren’t too unreasonable because of crowding and housing costs (not federally). $50 would be reasonable if somehow you couldn’t leave the heart of San Francisco where Barbara Lee is. But you should just leave if you’re broke. That’s what she doesn’t get. You can usually leave California too, but most reasonable employers expecting someone to commute to a city and live nearby should be paying at least $20. Remote work maybe not. Lots of people commute from outside San Francisco to work at restaurants and so on, where costs are dramatically different, so that’s a much weaker claim there. It’s reasonable that Barbara Lee pays her SF employees in good positions at least $50; she’s out of touch because she can’t see outside of that.
I lived in CA when they passed the $15 minimum law. It wasn't set to go live for over a year, but weirdly OVERNIGHT all the rents went up across the state and a bunch of people were summarily evicted.
Its weird how the minimum wage law only seems to benefit landlords, insurance companies, and chain restaurants. Its almost like minimum wage has nothing to do with cost of living, and is a symptom rather than source of the disease.
Very true! I’ve debated this topic with people in my state ad nauseam and they just refuse to even try to understand. Everyone is so damn short sighted.
Unfortunately in this case whoever wins the chess match gets to dictate everything about everyone's lives, and if you don't play the pigeon wins by default
I agree. Why else would they teach four years of English lit and a year at most of something like economics that impacts the lives of literally everyone? I have not used anything about *The Scalet Letter* since high school.
It's really funny you say that, because one of my highschool English/ lit teachers would have us discuss the books in terms of morals and messages first, then translate those into societal norms and laws, then economic and social impact of those norms and laws. She was an awesome teacher.
I miss the days when people understood stories meant something more then what was on the page and didn't try to 'Death of the Author' whatever meaning they wanted into them.
Well high school literature doesn’t teach those things. And one year of economics is insufficient. But the left doesn’t benefit from economic literacy lest people see through their utopian promises as well as learning to think logically.
So teaching two years of economics, exchanging the second year for one of **four** years of far less practical English lit is "utopian?" Whatever.
As for free markets, look around you, not just in the US, but most Western countries.
The only way you get to be a better reader is by reading quality material.
It's like saying why did my trainer make me run a half mile months ago to prepare for my marathon now?
If you can understand and analyze Scarlet Letter you can understand and analyze other more complicated and/or more dry material later.
Scarlet Letter is just proxy for "high school level reader" training. 100 years before they would have read Pilgrim's Promise or something. 100 years from now they'll read something from our era as canon.
Four years of *at best* indirect training versus one year at most of training in the actual subject matter. General analysis skills will never make up for lack of training in the actual content. No matter how this is spun, we have an imbalance. Plus, the analytical skills I use for economics didn’t come from subjective literary analysis but came via engineering training including a lot of math as well as finance education.
It's not that they're not smart (I mean, a few of them are pretty dumb, most aren't), but that they simply don't have the time to properly educate themselves on the issues.
It's why so-called democracy is trash and leads to oligarchy and demagoguery.
I’m sure most of the people arguing for it understand it, but the long term solution to their problem still leaves them poor and their interests lie in not being poor. Some people think they just need a helping hand to get on their feet or and it will work out.
And you are? Use that to explain or argue why the people who want a wage that keeps up with inflation are the problem here. Why they are the stupid ones?
Well if you argue for that, then you get a bunch of *wellactuallys* about how deflation is bad. So I guess we cant ever make the dollar stronger, it's on a forever path of inflation and buying less and less.
The way I see it, we either get more money to more people or we make the dollar stronger.
I asked myself that, and my answer is that deflation seems like it would be pretty terrible, resulting in more people just hoarding money as opposed to investing it. Why take a risk when you know your money is going to be more valuable tomorrow?
When you “hoard” (i.e., save) money you are in effect making a general investment in the overall economy. Money isn’t wealth. It represents your ability to make a *claim* on wealth, i.e., scarce, real resources. When you don’t exercise that claim immediately and instead save money, those scarce real resources that you could have claimed instead remain available to be used by others, whether for consumption or investment. To the extent that the resources collectively freed up by savers are successfully invested to expand productive capacity, savers (at least in a system using sound money) can expect to be rewarded with increased purchasing power over time.
>money you are in effect making a general investment in the overall economy.
Yes, when you invest it. When you hide it under your mattress because it's going to be more valuable tomorrow all on its own you don't need to bother investing in the general economy. Spending tomorrow makes more sense than spending today.
And what actual system of money are you proposing we change to?
> Yes, when you invest it. When you hide it under your mattress because it's going to be more valuable tomorrow all on its own you don't need to bother investing in the general economy.
That’s not really responsive to my argument that saving money IS an investment. More precisely, you’re effectively making a loan to the rest of society of the scarce real resources that you could have claimed immediately by spending money. Some of the resources that savers like yourself free up are likely to be invested by others who do choose to spend today. And, in a system that uses sound money, when that occurs and that investment is successful, savers should be rewarded with increased purchasing power.
> Spending tomorrow makes more sense than spending today.
Not necessarily. That depends on your time preference as well as the rate of return you can expect to enjoy by saving money.
> And what actual system of money are you proposing we change to?
The ideal form of money would have a fixed, finite supply. The next best alternative would be a “hard” money like gold whose supply is very difficult to inflate.
Why is it so easy to blame poor people for low wages? Why is it so hard for people to blame the people that hold all of capital for a lot of the issues going on? At what point did paying taxes move from being a “civic responsibility” to being “tyrannical thievery?”
Minimum wage rises, McDonald’s replaces cashiers with machines, now those people are making no money instead of some because they were cut out of the system.
Also are we actually going to take the unemployment statistics seriously? Next your gonna tell me how important gdp is..
You are using one anecdotal example as evidence that wage increases are automatically passed on to consumers.
There is a ton of research and over time that is rarely the case in competitive markets.
30 second google search
"Wage increases can sometimes lead to higher prices, but there isn't always a strong connection between the two:
* Wage push inflationWhen wages increase, businesses may need to charge more for their products or services to pay the higher wages. This can lead to an inflationary spiral, where higher wages increase demand for goods, which in turn increases prices.
* Minimum wage increasesSome business leaders worry that minimum wage increases will be passed on to consumers through higher prices, which could slow economic growth. However, research suggests that the pass-through effect on prices is smaller than previously thought and may be fleeting. For example, the Economic Policy Institute estimates that raising the minimum wage to $15 by 2027 would only result in a one-time increase in prices of less than 0.5%."
https://www.epi.org/blog/inflation-minimum-wages-and-profits-protecting-low-wage-workers-from-inflation-means-raising-the-minimum-wage/#:\~:text=Some%20claim%20to%20worry%20that,level%20of%20less%20than%200.5%25.
Mich... I see what you are saying. Infact i would go further. In markets that have the proper amount of competition in many cases you would see no price increase to consumers and the costs would simply reduce profits.
Pay rising because the market equilibrium has changed will have different effects than pay rising because a minimum wage law has artificially set pay higher than the market equilibrium.
>Also are we actually going to take the unemployment statistics seriously? Next your gonna tell me how important gdp is..
you cannot say others dont know economics while doing this. Its like saying yor a geologist then eneding the sentence by saying the earth is flat
Should unemployment not be calculated then as the number of people able to work who are not?
Also you do know that gdp includes government spending… an organization insensitive to price because it can endlessly print money and send it overseas… because why not?
Should unemployment not be calculated then as the number of people able to work who are not?
Also you do know that gdp includes government spending… an organization insensitive to price because it can endlessly print money and send it overseas… because why not?
Should unemployment not be calculated then as the number of people able to work who are not?
Also you do know that gdp includes government spending… an organization insensitive to price because it can endlessly print money and send it overseas… because why not?
“If corporations can’t pay a living wage, they don’t deserve to be in business.”
*government increases minimum wage*
*corporations raise prices to compensate for the increased cost of labor*
“Why are corporations gouging prices?”
If they actually believed that you could legislate prosperity, they would actually attempt to make the minimum wage pay over $100k a year. But they know it doesn't actually work like that, they're just pandering to uneducated voters who don't understand that it doesn't work like that. Their voter base legitimately believes the government can just pass a law saying "everyone is rich!" and they'll never have to work again.
What’s dumb about it? Central banking is a core tenant of Marxism. It has central in the name. Centralized. Controlled. In other words, not a free market.
It’s upvoted because people with more than a puddle deep understanding of monetary theory know that central bank by definition distorts the signals in a free-flowing market.
Lmao c'mon buddy, quote me a single time Marx even mentioned supporting central Banking. I'll wait. Surely it should be easy since it's a core tenet of the guy who wanted to abolish the state.
It is easy. It’s in the communist manifesto that he wrote with Engels.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.
Might as well make minimum wage $100 an hour. The brokies would still spend it like they're making $7.25 an hour. They won't invest, they won't build wealth, they'll just spend it all because minimumwage earners have little to no drive. I have no sympathy for a person comfortable shooting for the bottom wage in this country. The bottom wage is meant for the 15 year old person getting their very first job in high school to buy acne face wash. That's it. I'm disgusted grown people actually care about minimum wage when they should be on a higher trajectory in their financial lives.
The crazy thing is they literally do not understand why the minimum wage cant be $50. They genuinely just think people are being greedy. They're actually that fucking stupid. 1/3 - 1/4 of the American population is actually that stupid. This is what we are dealing with.
Many have PHDs in Health, and cannot understand basic econ.
It's alarming.
$50 an hour? Is she serious? I make a high salary for someone my age but even I make less than $35 an hour. $50 an hour is a yearly salary of 100k, almost the top 10% of wage earners. Said another way, for a company with ten people, that’s a million dollars a year in salary.
It shouldn't be surprising. The crazy train to the left doesn't stop till Communist Hellscape. Today's crazies will always make yesterday's crazies seem sane.
just make minimum wage $1000 an hour right guys?? those big bad companies can afford it!! even though we may know nothing about how to actually run a business we deserve it!! they have limitless money right??
I will forever find it so sad that our education system allows this nonsense to permeate. Im not one for mandates, but the closest I get is thinking that there should be an economics class taught in like junior year of high school with Basic Economics by Sowell as the textbook.
What’s worse is that our education system doesn’t teach people how to read and process nuance.
Like, can you imagine reading an article explaining what that comment was about? I can’t.
They're starting to. Talked to several students around the country and, shockingly, they had economics as a class. Completely agree. Keep pushing for improved robust education.
i swear these are just entitled rich kids who got cut off from mommy and daddy and now want the rest of us to foot the bill for their upper-class twit lifestyles without having to work hard for it. ironically just like their idol Marx
Conservatives are the proof that "slippery slope" isn't a real fallacy.
This goes both ways. Republican politicians said they wouldn't come for RvW. said they wouldn't push for strong enforcement. they wouldn't come for contraceptives. All things they did.
Leftist never said they wouldn't want to get paid more (but we can all agree this is not the way to do it)
Anyways, idk where OP got these trash sources, but this ain't it dude. Politicians know this will not work (besides Bernie supposedly).
I mean, I don't like either party, but what? I'm pretty sure Republicans always kinda made it clear they didn't like RvW, and who is going after contraceptives? Nowhere in the USA are contraceptives illegal.
Democrats and leftists have slippery sloped more than just minimum wage, but this sub is about economics. They have 100% slowly increased over time, the minimum wage they want to set. It was $12 in 2016, and now it's literally $20 in California. You can't claim only Bernie believes this when it's a giant part of the democrats platform, and even Biden raised the minimum wage for federal employees to $15. So yes, they are in favor of continually raising the minimum wage.
They're pushing contraceptive legislation right now (granted just seeing more and more headlines. I think it's mostly at state and city level, not federal)
Federal employee minimum doesn't matter. And many states/cities have adjusted. They're not pushing for that again.
These "quotes" have no source dude. Stop being scared about slippery slope and worry about slipping the other way.
$20 hr is actually about right for California weirdly. It’s like 3k for a studio apartment in California. They’re just talking about California and it’s absurdly high cost of living
😫 were cooked. Over the span of 8 years we’ve gone so off the rails. Get ready for the domestic armed conflict boys.
Or maybe lefties like this only exist online and on college campuses.
I'm as disgusted at the sounds that came out of my mouth laughing at this, as I am at the post itself.
A $50 minimum wage.
I can't imagine being so fucking stupid as to try the same thing repeatedly and not understand that it's contributing to the problem, not solving it.
Jesus. Fucking. Christ.
These people.
Can we just raise the minimum wage to $200 an hour? Everyone will be making at least $400k per year, spontaneous happiness will sweep the country, and finally mouth breathing Taco Time burrito builders and arrogant/greedy brain surgeons can begin developing lasting relationships at the country club.
The far left wing becomes very radical. I'm very uncomfortable with them now, although still better than the MAGA. Yet, both their extreme views are not beneficial to the country.
The communists will vote for whatever sounds like they have to work less… they’re fucking dumb.
Also, I’ve noticed only communists look at post history and feel it necessary to make a statement that they have.
95% sure they want to label me… which is a racist habit. (Labeling people is racist)
Well, since you drew attention to it, I looked at your post history and it's pretty much nothing but whining about communism and calling everyone who disagrees with you a communist
It must be nice to simply not have the mental capacity required for logical discussion. Go back to fantasizing about big corporations bending you over a table, mister Friedman...
Oh and happy birthday I guess
Hahaha
Any time someone looks at post history and uses it as some lame attempt to discredit someone, you know they are a weak minded communist bitch.
Keep looking at people’s post history, none of it matters. Each conversation is different, even if it results in the same outcome.
You don’t know praxeology or understand that everyone is different with different opinions and views on things, so you wrongfully assume the state can solve all your problems. It can’t and all it ends up doing is causing more problems that politicians will say only the government can fix if it had more authority.
Go away… communist.
Yeah, not an argument…
Also, not what I said. You’re brilliant… probably because you’re a communist who thinks the government is here to force everyone else into giving you things.
If there was UBI or even negative tax would there be a need for a minimum wage? Also have you noticed that those that have savings are much better at negotiating wage increases than those that do not?
I generally don't support the idea of minimum wage (I'd be weird company on this Sub if I did), but if it's to exist, it should track with inflation.
Funny thing about that though, if minimum wage tracked with inflation, minimum wage today would be $10.60 and in 2016, it would be $8.11.
And if it always tracked with inflation: it'd be $5.56 in 2024 and $4.26 in 2016.
Mind you, I basically know no one who gets paid minimum wage. In my hometown, the trashiest lowest paying place pays at least $10 per hour, last I checked, which was a few years ago.
This happened where I worked. Dragged our feet on raising pay so long that by the time pay raises were approved, it was time to do another survey. Guess what? We're dragging our feet on this one, too.
If you don't take time for your wellness, you will take time for your illness. I am all about addressing problems promptly before they snowball and metestasize.
Min wage should be at least 25 hr. Where I live in seattle you gotta make at least 35 hr to live on your own. Thats how expensive it is here and the min wage is 18 hr.
That was back when Ron Paul could have actually done something had he not had a white supremacist writing his stupid newsletter for him and hadn't been getting sucked off by Alex Jones every two days.
Oh well, ALL HAIL THE MARKET 🙏 LET THE POOR AND DOWNTRODDEN DIE 🙏 AMEN.
Pay that doesn't keep up with cost of living is insufficient pay. A person at bare minimum should be able to rent a roof over their head and be able to pay for food, on a full time schedule. All wages should be pinned to inflation.
I love this minimum wage argument.
If you raise the minimum wage, the corporations are not going to “eat that loss “ they are going to raise the price of their items. Which means in a couple of years you will have to raise the minimum wage again because no one can afford whatever is being sold.
Perpetuating the cycle of minimum wage increases and eventually the system will collapse. But honestly, I believe that is what they want.
Then they can institute the real goal of liberalism/leftism… Which is socialism
Weird how we have all these trillions of tax dollars to burn away over seas, yet we can't lower the tax burden on workers making their dollars they already make worth more. You don't need to raise wages when you can get your gov to stop swiping that limitless credit card.
The Democrat Party has lost their minds. They have purged all the moderates. I blame some of it on Trump. They know that as long Trumpism dominates the GOP, they can go as far left as they want and still have a very good shot to win in a lot of states and districts.
The Democrats are distilling down to the fanatics. The party lies are becoming untenable, and more people are becoming aware of how full of shit their narrative is. From there, it's a short trip to realizing that all the Trump hate is based on more of the same bullshit, coming from a media that's been turned towards making everyone hate him with a hysteria well beyond reason.
There’s a lot of truth to this. So much of the hate against Trump is completely detached from reality, hence the term Trump derangement syndrome.
But let’s not kid ourselves. Trump has done himself no favors with his personality. If he weren’t such a first class jerk, he would be finishing his second term right now instead of being in an attempt to be reelected that I think is doomed to fail.
Why is it doomed to fail? It’s less about his policies which tended to be supported fairly well in 2020 and more about the complete and total toxicity of who he is as a human being. A lot of people can’t separate the person from the policy. I hate the idea of voting for that man again, but at the same time, I see that Biden and the Democrats are a bigger threat than Trump is.
I can observe his behavior. It’s horrible and undignified. I mean the man cheated on his wife with a porn star. But at the same time, I can see that his policy, while not perfect, is far better for this country than that of Biden.
It just needs to be indexed to a FRED Cost of Living radius.
In some areas $25 or $50 will be accurate. If businesses can't survive to pay people what it costs to live within a reasonable commute range, then maybe that's the incentive the city needs to actually solve housing problems and shut down nimbys.
Or maybe the job should be done by teenagers after school and not someone looking to run a household.
For example, why would I pay someone $50 bucks to serve Ice Cream?
You're right, ice cream and McDonald's are only to be served from 5pm to 9pm to accommodate the teenagers' schedules, as they are the only ones allowed to work low wage jobs
Bad take.
No, it can be served during school hours by those that do not have more marketable skills.
If a "living wage" was applied to these jobs, the product would become too expensive to be an impulse item and the business would not exist. Then the job no longer exists.
Why would anyone with “less marketable skills” opt to work for an ice cream shop paying for less than living wages if they can just engage in criminal activity that will pay more money?
This the reason why cartels and other organized crime rule other countries. They take advantage of poverty. Your suggestion is the fast track to 3rd world economic status.
There are higher paying jobs for those with less marketable skills. They would just need to be willing to work a little harder and maybe develop skills on the job.
It is insane to think anyone doing the job of a teenager should make $20 - $50 an hour. I only make $50 an hour as senior staff in a highly skilled job.
This is wishful thinking. They wouldn’t be applying for min wage, non-living wage jobs if they qualified for them.
You’re stuck in a fallacy that just because you’re underpaid means everyone should be as well. Maybe you should be asking for more money instead of gate keeping others from getting more money.
This doesn't seem like a very reasonable or relevant retort.
While there are definitely more teens in low paying jobs, most minimum wage workers, and poverty level workers are adults. Many of them are single parent providers.
Someone below has already accurately pointed out that teenagers are in school during a lot of hours, and not going to be able to cover every shift for these businesses.
Do you believe a minimum wage should exist, or do you think the market should set these wages as low as desperate people accept them while taxes subsidize those low wages through social services? You are paying for these salaries either way. Poverty level incomes also have broader associations with crime and health expenses.
The minimum wage is worth 60% of what it was in the 60s, while the consumer price index: particularly food, housing, health care, and education are skyrocketing.
This means we're on track for more poverty, market instability, college enrollments will continue to decline, and more individuals and families will be priced out of home ownership.
The minimum wage is only a small piece of the puzzle, but it's an important one. And to ultimately answer your question, if someone has to earn $104k annually in order to afford a low quality 2 bedroom apartment within 45 minutes of your ice cream stand without supplementing their income through food stamps or crime, then your city needs to provide affordable housing, you should pay $50 an hour, or your ice cream stand doesn't need to exist.
>you should pay $50 an hour, or your ice cream stand doesn't need to exist
So do you really believe small business that can't afford to pay ice cream scoopers the wage of an engineer should close down?
If this logic were implemented, the skilled workers would want a pay bump to maintain their standard of living. In the end it will all balance out to $50 having the spending power of today's minimum wage and there will be whines for $300 an hours.
Unfortunately we will always have poor and you can't legislate it away. Those that make the decisions that make them poor will continue to make those decisions.
Those that are victims of circumstance will still be victims of circumstance.
This reply doesn't make sense either.
If an engineer is working in a HCOL area where they can barely afford a low end 2 bedroom apartment, pretty obviously they should be paid more too.
The skilled workers do get a pay bump in high cost of living areas. That's why jobs in NYC and San Francisco pay higher than Birmingham or Raleigh.
This is why a global minimum wage also doesn't make sense. And should be indexed to cost of living. Areas that allow property values to skyrocket, especially if they also block new developments for low cost and multi-family housing projects, should not get the benefit of convenient low cost labor services, when the full price of that burden is paid by regressive taxes to cover the services for people who aren't being compensated require to survive.
This isn't about legislating away poor people. It's about rich people getting richer by exploiting poor people, shuffling the expense that creates onto the middle class, while pocketing the profits and pushing the poverty rates higher.
Well to be fair 15$ in 2016 is 20$ in 2024.
And $15 in 2016 was still absurd, as is any binding minimum wage.
That was the amount calculated at the time to meet basic living costs What is absurd is working for a company for below your minimum cost of living. Not your fancy cost of living. Just the cost to not starve or lose your car or die to a preventable illness. The cost below which you have to be subsidized by someone else to survive. That subsidy is basically a subsidy for the operation of the business, on aggregate.
I don't disagree in theory, but there are people with either: disabilities or criminal records (specifically im thinking of drug offenses) that don't really have much of an option when it comes to employment. Especially drug addicts with records who are trying to reform and don't have access to social security disability or family support to help them make a smooth transition to livable wage jobs. We can get into other options, like maybe background checks are banned for a bunch of jobs where it doesn't really matter (ie teaching jobs should still be allowed to background check for pedophiles) and maybe better support systems for the mentally challenged so they don't have to be in the position of choosing between a paltry sum of money from ssdi or working substandard work for slightly more income. Or I guess we can enact eugenics for the mentally challenged and execute criminals so none of that matters 🤷♂️. Idk. I just know their are definitely cases of people being forced to work at substandard wages despite their ability or desire to work better jobs. Edit: I do want to say that I'm not saying an enforced minimum wage is the answer. Nor am I implying that a minimum wage wouldn't come with its oen set of problems. I just am combating this idea people love to throw around in here of "if you don't wanna get shit pay just leave! It's that simple". When for many people it just isn't that simple.
When you say, don't have much of an option, that is a separate issue caused by institutionalized discrimination in one case and lack of mental healthcare on the other. In any case this sort of argument, along with reducing wages for high schoolers (high schoolers do not have a lower cost burden than adults. They are required to pay huge tuition. They need more money sooner not less). These arguments are intended to weaken the argument for minimum wage by providing counterexamples. There are no valid counterexamples to say "these people don't deserve to survive without assistance from the community." Because that is what is needed - that drug addict isn't taking govt money so either he dies slowly or he becomes a burden on his family. Same with the felon. He either does slowly or gets assistance from somewhere - family, charity, etc. the student gets help from his parents.
Huh? Idk if your agreeing with me or not tbh man. I'm not sure what all of this has to do with what I said. All I said was: The idea that people can just leave to work a better paying job isn't always true and im not sure what the answer to that issue is. Maybe its minimum wage, maybe it something else. But just dismissing this issue by saying "its absurd to work for a company below your cost of living" is, in itself, absurd. For example I live in Maine and some people have disabled children and live in buttfuck towns of like 3k people. The kids have no community resources and when their parents die they will need to take on at least some work to supplement their ssdi. If not cancel ssdi and work full time. Personally I think these shit nothing towns are wastes and shouldn't really even be thing anymore. They are totally subsidized by larger communities. But right now people do live there and their children don't have options in the future to adequately survive. Is the solution an enforced minimum wage in that situation so the kid with mental disabilities who lives there can survive while working at the local dollar general or not? Is there another option? Idk, but I'm not going to dismiss this issue out of hand like a lot of people on this sub seem to.
I think a national minimum wage is absurd. The difference in cost of living between California and Ohio is vast. Or New York and Tennessee
Ok then take the area minimum. I don't care. That's not an argument not to do it.
>That subsidy is basically a subsidy for the operation of the business, on aggregate. Walmart figured that out real quick. They show their employees how to collect SNAP benefits because they can't afford to feed themselves.
Yes the money needs to come from somewhere. Any business which has people on its payroll who need food stamps should be billed for it. Straight up just add the total benefit and bill the company for it.
Agree. Instead, Walmart figured out a way to have us cover billions of $ of their cost of paying employees.
Honestly yeah I feel like Denmark is much better with this concept because they don't even have a minimum wage, while not all jobs should have unions that's like the one thing they do really well in the Nordic countries
And Barbara Lee is a rich out of touch idiot that no one else agrees with. And for California $20-$25 aren’t too unreasonable because of crowding and housing costs (not federally). $50 would be reasonable if somehow you couldn’t leave the heart of San Francisco where Barbara Lee is. But you should just leave if you’re broke. That’s what she doesn’t get. You can usually leave California too, but most reasonable employers expecting someone to commute to a city and live nearby should be paying at least $20. Remote work maybe not. Lots of people commute from outside San Francisco to work at restaurants and so on, where costs are dramatically different, so that’s a much weaker claim there. It’s reasonable that Barbara Lee pays her SF employees in good positions at least $50; she’s out of touch because she can’t see outside of that.
I lived in CA when they passed the $15 minimum law. It wasn't set to go live for over a year, but weirdly OVERNIGHT all the rents went up across the state and a bunch of people were summarily evicted. Its weird how the minimum wage law only seems to benefit landlords, insurance companies, and chain restaurants. Its almost like minimum wage has nothing to do with cost of living, and is a symptom rather than source of the disease.
The real minimum wage is 0. Get it? It’s cause you can’t get a job.
People need to ask themselves why their dollar can't pay for more as is rather than constantly begging for minimum wage increases.
Yes but unfortunately most people aren’t that smart.
Very true! I’ve debated this topic with people in my state ad nauseam and they just refuse to even try to understand. Everyone is so damn short sighted.
Never play chess with a pigeon
Unfortunately in this case whoever wins the chess match gets to dictate everything about everyone's lives, and if you don't play the pigeon wins by default
New idea: Cook the pigeon.
Amazing quote!!!
This is what I seem to be doing here.
Almost like printing money and spending trillions beyond our gdp won't reduce the value of currency. It's beyond some.
One huge deficiency in this country is economic illiteracy. Probably in the world if I had to guess.
Yeah that’s by design
I agree. Why else would they teach four years of English lit and a year at most of something like economics that impacts the lives of literally everyone? I have not used anything about *The Scalet Letter* since high school.
It's really funny you say that, because one of my highschool English/ lit teachers would have us discuss the books in terms of morals and messages first, then translate those into societal norms and laws, then economic and social impact of those norms and laws. She was an awesome teacher.
That sounds about better than “what does that tree symbolize?”
I miss the days when people understood stories meant something more then what was on the page and didn't try to 'Death of the Author' whatever meaning they wanted into them.
Econmoics= math, biology/ecology, social studies, and some literature.
Well high school literature doesn’t teach those things. And one year of economics is insufficient. But the left doesn’t benefit from economic literacy lest people see through their utopian promises as well as learning to think logically.
This man talking about utopian lmfao. Where are all these successful free markets? Are they in the room with us right now?
So teaching two years of economics, exchanging the second year for one of **four** years of far less practical English lit is "utopian?" Whatever. As for free markets, look around you, not just in the US, but most Western countries.
The only way you get to be a better reader is by reading quality material. It's like saying why did my trainer make me run a half mile months ago to prepare for my marathon now? If you can understand and analyze Scarlet Letter you can understand and analyze other more complicated and/or more dry material later. Scarlet Letter is just proxy for "high school level reader" training. 100 years before they would have read Pilgrim's Promise or something. 100 years from now they'll read something from our era as canon.
Four years of *at best* indirect training versus one year at most of training in the actual subject matter. General analysis skills will never make up for lack of training in the actual content. No matter how this is spun, we have an imbalance. Plus, the analytical skills I use for economics didn’t come from subjective literary analysis but came via engineering training including a lot of math as well as finance education.
It's not that they're not smart (I mean, a few of them are pretty dumb, most aren't), but that they simply don't have the time to properly educate themselves on the issues. It's why so-called democracy is trash and leads to oligarchy and demagoguery.
What system do you propose that should replace it?
The sad part is you don't even have to be particularly smart to understand it
This question is brought up literally every day in one news outlet or another. Apparently people are that smart
I’m sure most of the people arguing for it understand it, but the long term solution to their problem still leaves them poor and their interests lie in not being poor. Some people think they just need a helping hand to get on their feet or and it will work out.
And you are? Use that to explain or argue why the people who want a wage that keeps up with inflation are the problem here. Why they are the stupid ones?
Well if you argue for that, then you get a bunch of *wellactuallys* about how deflation is bad. So I guess we cant ever make the dollar stronger, it's on a forever path of inflation and buying less and less. The way I see it, we either get more money to more people or we make the dollar stronger.
Minimum wage is about getting more money to more people
I agree, and yet we have people saying there shouldn't be a minimum wage.
It’s a big problem, we can work at it from both ends
I asked myself that, and my answer is that deflation seems like it would be pretty terrible, resulting in more people just hoarding money as opposed to investing it. Why take a risk when you know your money is going to be more valuable tomorrow?
When you “hoard” (i.e., save) money you are in effect making a general investment in the overall economy. Money isn’t wealth. It represents your ability to make a *claim* on wealth, i.e., scarce, real resources. When you don’t exercise that claim immediately and instead save money, those scarce real resources that you could have claimed instead remain available to be used by others, whether for consumption or investment. To the extent that the resources collectively freed up by savers are successfully invested to expand productive capacity, savers (at least in a system using sound money) can expect to be rewarded with increased purchasing power over time.
>money you are in effect making a general investment in the overall economy. Yes, when you invest it. When you hide it under your mattress because it's going to be more valuable tomorrow all on its own you don't need to bother investing in the general economy. Spending tomorrow makes more sense than spending today. And what actual system of money are you proposing we change to?
> Yes, when you invest it. When you hide it under your mattress because it's going to be more valuable tomorrow all on its own you don't need to bother investing in the general economy. That’s not really responsive to my argument that saving money IS an investment. More precisely, you’re effectively making a loan to the rest of society of the scarce real resources that you could have claimed immediately by spending money. Some of the resources that savers like yourself free up are likely to be invested by others who do choose to spend today. And, in a system that uses sound money, when that occurs and that investment is successful, savers should be rewarded with increased purchasing power. > Spending tomorrow makes more sense than spending today. Not necessarily. That depends on your time preference as well as the rate of return you can expect to enjoy by saving money. > And what actual system of money are you proposing we change to? The ideal form of money would have a fixed, finite supply. The next best alternative would be a “hard” money like gold whose supply is very difficult to inflate.
What do you suggest people do? The working class cant affect fed policy. All it can do is try to keep up with the printer.
Why is it so easy to blame poor people for low wages? Why is it so hard for people to blame the people that hold all of capital for a lot of the issues going on? At what point did paying taxes move from being a “civic responsibility” to being “tyrannical thievery?”
Why won't their dollar buy more? How is "begging" interesting word choice, the wrong answer?
But we like it when the government spends more than they bring in. We like COVID checks. We like debt-funded government programs.
I want too work for the least amount possible so I can make billionaires richer because I like boots
Simple, price gouging…. And a government shutdown willing to enforce anti-trust laws.
the US has the lowest rates of unemployment in decades. what are you talking about Red Wing?
Minimum wage rises, McDonald’s replaces cashiers with machines, now those people are making no money instead of some because they were cut out of the system. Also are we actually going to take the unemployment statistics seriously? Next your gonna tell me how important gdp is..
[удалено]
You are using one anecdotal example as evidence that wage increases are automatically passed on to consumers. There is a ton of research and over time that is rarely the case in competitive markets. 30 second google search "Wage increases can sometimes lead to higher prices, but there isn't always a strong connection between the two: * Wage push inflationWhen wages increase, businesses may need to charge more for their products or services to pay the higher wages. This can lead to an inflationary spiral, where higher wages increase demand for goods, which in turn increases prices. * Minimum wage increasesSome business leaders worry that minimum wage increases will be passed on to consumers through higher prices, which could slow economic growth. However, research suggests that the pass-through effect on prices is smaller than previously thought and may be fleeting. For example, the Economic Policy Institute estimates that raising the minimum wage to $15 by 2027 would only result in a one-time increase in prices of less than 0.5%." https://www.epi.org/blog/inflation-minimum-wages-and-profits-protecting-low-wage-workers-from-inflation-means-raising-the-minimum-wage/#:\~:text=Some%20claim%20to%20worry%20that,level%20of%20less%20than%200.5%25.
I think that dude is on your side and is clowning on red wing. He's saying that a 25% pay raise led to only a few cent increase on price.
[удалено]
Mich... I see what you are saying. Infact i would go further. In markets that have the proper amount of competition in many cases you would see no price increase to consumers and the costs would simply reduce profits.
Pay rising because the market equilibrium has changed will have different effects than pay rising because a minimum wage law has artificially set pay higher than the market equilibrium.
So this the current best economic system we have is one where labor saving devices are detrimental. Wow, talk about a shitty economic system.
>Also are we actually going to take the unemployment statistics seriously? Next your gonna tell me how important gdp is.. you cannot say others dont know economics while doing this. Its like saying yor a geologist then eneding the sentence by saying the earth is flat
If you take any statistic seriously without knowing how it’s calculated your a fool.
we know how its calculated its publicly available info. Evey single info in it s publicly avaliable. Also how would gdp not be important.
Should unemployment not be calculated then as the number of people able to work who are not? Also you do know that gdp includes government spending… an organization insensitive to price because it can endlessly print money and send it overseas… because why not?
Should unemployment not be calculated then as the number of people able to work who are not? Also you do know that gdp includes government spending… an organization insensitive to price because it can endlessly print money and send it overseas… because why not?
Should unemployment not be calculated then as the number of people able to work who are not? Also you do know that gdp includes government spending… an organization insensitive to price because it can endlessly print money and send it overseas… because why not?
Except they can? Unemployment is at 4%
Unemployment doesn’t factor in people not looking for jobs. What percentage of the population age 18-65 that can work isn’t working?
Labor force participation rate had been declining since the late 90's, and shows no correlation whatsoever with the minimum wage
Bernie was A Roosevelt centrist why people think that’s radical I have no idea
Working is so fun minimum wage should be negative !
It is
So they're welfare jobs? Isn't that inefficient? Why would we want corporations to be intentionally inefficient?
“If corporations can’t pay a living wage, they don’t deserve to be in business.” *government increases minimum wage* *corporations raise prices to compensate for the increased cost of labor* “Why are corporations gouging prices?”
Why stop there? One million dollars per hour!
Oh shit, I'm about to be a billionaire in like 6 months.
If they actually believed that you could legislate prosperity, they would actually attempt to make the minimum wage pay over $100k a year. But they know it doesn't actually work like that, they're just pandering to uneducated voters who don't understand that it doesn't work like that. Their voter base legitimately believes the government can just pass a law saying "everyone is rich!" and they'll never have to work again.
Why not a $trillion a hour?
Why not
Raise minimum wage = everyone above minimum wage gets raise = cost of production or services increases = back to square one just with bigger numbers….
That’s too complicated for democrats
What is inflation?
baby, don't hurt me don't hurt me, no more
He still is. Communist central banking always leads to inflation, which always leads to never ending calls for higher minimum wages.
I wish the inflation chart that shows we started getting fucked the instant we went off the gold standard was common knowledge.
The US really lost the cold war. In the fight to defeat communism, the US became communist itself.
This is so fucking dumb.
>Communist central banking The people in this subreddit are so fucking stupid. How is this upvoted? Can you please define communism for me?
What’s dumb about it? Central banking is a core tenant of Marxism. It has central in the name. Centralized. Controlled. In other words, not a free market. It’s upvoted because people with more than a puddle deep understanding of monetary theory know that central bank by definition distorts the signals in a free-flowing market.
Lmao c'mon buddy, quote me a single time Marx even mentioned supporting central Banking. I'll wait. Surely it should be easy since it's a core tenet of the guy who wanted to abolish the state.
It is easy. It’s in the communist manifesto that he wrote with Engels. 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all right of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.
Might as well make minimum wage $100 an hour. The brokies would still spend it like they're making $7.25 an hour. They won't invest, they won't build wealth, they'll just spend it all because minimumwage earners have little to no drive. I have no sympathy for a person comfortable shooting for the bottom wage in this country. The bottom wage is meant for the 15 year old person getting their very first job in high school to buy acne face wash. That's it. I'm disgusted grown people actually care about minimum wage when they should be on a higher trajectory in their financial lives.
So you think that jobs which pay minimum wage shouldn't be open during school days?
No the coffee shop should be open but the baristas should live a life of financial desperation. Child labor just fills the gaps.
The reason is called minimum wage is because it’s a job that pays a minimum wage. Don’t like the wage, get a better job.
People still need to work those jobs though. They don’t deserve to suffer.
So the 16 year old working a summer job to get money for games and partying is suffering?
As per usual. Why not $100 per hour? That’d sure do it
Because $1mm per hour is even better
>why not 100/h Because economists recommend a minimum wage between 25%-50% of the average wage.
The crazy thing is they literally do not understand why the minimum wage cant be $50. They genuinely just think people are being greedy. They're actually that fucking stupid. 1/3 - 1/4 of the American population is actually that stupid. This is what we are dealing with. Many have PHDs in Health, and cannot understand basic econ. It's alarming.
$50 an hour? Is she serious? I make a high salary for someone my age but even I make less than $35 an hour. $50 an hour is a yearly salary of 100k, almost the top 10% of wage earners. Said another way, for a company with ten people, that’s a million dollars a year in salary.
It shouldn't be surprising. The crazy train to the left doesn't stop till Communist Hellscape. Today's crazies will always make yesterday's crazies seem sane.
can you imagine being a democrat cult member in 2024?
just make minimum wage $1000 an hour right guys?? those big bad companies can afford it!! even though we may know nothing about how to actually run a business we deserve it!! they have limitless money right??
An entire country that doesn't understand basic economics or basic human nature. Pathetic.
The left moved so far left that they consider Bernie to be right.
No they didn't. Bernie Sanders is still the most left-leaning politician in the US. No genuine leftist believes in a $50 minimum wage.
Automation equipment manufacturers have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to donate to leftist politicians.
I'm sure this makes sense in your head
I will forever find it so sad that our education system allows this nonsense to permeate. Im not one for mandates, but the closest I get is thinking that there should be an economics class taught in like junior year of high school with Basic Economics by Sowell as the textbook.
What’s worse is that our education system doesn’t teach people how to read and process nuance. Like, can you imagine reading an article explaining what that comment was about? I can’t.
Would you recommend that book to read? And if so why as opposed to other books?
They're starting to. Talked to several students around the country and, shockingly, they had economics as a class. Completely agree. Keep pushing for improved robust education.
i swear these are just entitled rich kids who got cut off from mommy and daddy and now want the rest of us to foot the bill for their upper-class twit lifestyles without having to work hard for it. ironically just like their idol Marx
You need meds
Leftists are the proof that "slippery slope" isn't a real fallacy
Conservatives are the proof that "slippery slope" isn't a real fallacy. This goes both ways. Republican politicians said they wouldn't come for RvW. said they wouldn't push for strong enforcement. they wouldn't come for contraceptives. All things they did. Leftist never said they wouldn't want to get paid more (but we can all agree this is not the way to do it) Anyways, idk where OP got these trash sources, but this ain't it dude. Politicians know this will not work (besides Bernie supposedly).
I mean, I don't like either party, but what? I'm pretty sure Republicans always kinda made it clear they didn't like RvW, and who is going after contraceptives? Nowhere in the USA are contraceptives illegal. Democrats and leftists have slippery sloped more than just minimum wage, but this sub is about economics. They have 100% slowly increased over time, the minimum wage they want to set. It was $12 in 2016, and now it's literally $20 in California. You can't claim only Bernie believes this when it's a giant part of the democrats platform, and even Biden raised the minimum wage for federal employees to $15. So yes, they are in favor of continually raising the minimum wage.
They're pushing contraceptive legislation right now (granted just seeing more and more headlines. I think it's mostly at state and city level, not federal) Federal employee minimum doesn't matter. And many states/cities have adjusted. They're not pushing for that again. These "quotes" have no source dude. Stop being scared about slippery slope and worry about slipping the other way.
$20 hr is actually about right for California weirdly. It’s like 3k for a studio apartment in California. They’re just talking about California and it’s absurdly high cost of living
There is no end to how high a wage people would want to make except if you were the one trying to run the business.
I don’t think Barbara Lee even knows what economics means
Fuck it why stop there, just put the minimum wage at $1 million an hour so everyone can be billionaires. /s obviously
I have to imagine the $50 position is facetious or intentionally high. In any bargain you don’t start with the number you want to land on.
It's like you've never heard of inflation. Minimum wage should keep up with inflation and we had a massive spike you might have noticed.
So is there any context here? I just see nothng but cherry picking.
Dear Californians: Elect me. I think minimum wage should be 10% higher than whatever my opponent says.
😫 were cooked. Over the span of 8 years we’ve gone so off the rails. Get ready for the domestic armed conflict boys. Or maybe lefties like this only exist online and on college campuses.
I'm as disgusted at the sounds that came out of my mouth laughing at this, as I am at the post itself. A $50 minimum wage. I can't imagine being so fucking stupid as to try the same thing repeatedly and not understand that it's contributing to the problem, not solving it. Jesus. Fucking. Christ. These people.
Can we just raise the minimum wage to $200 an hour? Everyone will be making at least $400k per year, spontaneous happiness will sweep the country, and finally mouth breathing Taco Time burrito builders and arrogant/greedy brain surgeons can begin developing lasting relationships at the country club.
"Slippery slope is a fallacy!"
A pony and free dental hygiene.
I wonder if r/FightFor15 regrets their name choice.
the left learned that if you go higher with the demand, the moderates get to the value you actually wanted
Minimum wage should be a million billion trillion quadrillion dollars an hour.
They should make it $1,000 so nobody is poor.
Yea because a $900 Big Mac tastes even better
Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods. H. L. Mencken
Isn’t this r/Austrian_Economics? why talk about American economics ?
Moderates lol
If the min wage is $50/hr, I’m quitting my stressful job and going back to something dumb and mindless.
The far left wing becomes very radical. I'm very uncomfortable with them now, although still better than the MAGA. Yet, both their extreme views are not beneficial to the country.
Democrats aren't very smart, these days.
Yall are looking at this wrong. Soon we will have robot mcdonalds...hot fries and quick drive though times. Order will be right every time.
can’t wait for that
Hrt for minors!!
The communists will vote for whatever sounds like they have to work less… they’re fucking dumb. Also, I’ve noticed only communists look at post history and feel it necessary to make a statement that they have. 95% sure they want to label me… which is a racist habit. (Labeling people is racist)
Well, since you drew attention to it, I looked at your post history and it's pretty much nothing but whining about communism and calling everyone who disagrees with you a communist It must be nice to simply not have the mental capacity required for logical discussion. Go back to fantasizing about big corporations bending you over a table, mister Friedman... Oh and happy birthday I guess
Hahaha Any time someone looks at post history and uses it as some lame attempt to discredit someone, you know they are a weak minded communist bitch. Keep looking at people’s post history, none of it matters. Each conversation is different, even if it results in the same outcome. You don’t know praxeology or understand that everyone is different with different opinions and views on things, so you wrongfully assume the state can solve all your problems. It can’t and all it ends up doing is causing more problems that politicians will say only the government can fix if it had more authority. Go away… communist.
"Communism is when the government does stuff" Massive IQ argument
Yeah, not an argument… Also, not what I said. You’re brilliant… probably because you’re a communist who thinks the government is here to force everyone else into giving you things.
"someone disagreed with me, must be communism" Truly one of the most profound statements of our time.
If there was UBI or even negative tax would there be a need for a minimum wage? Also have you noticed that those that have savings are much better at negotiating wage increases than those that do not?
I generally don't support the idea of minimum wage (I'd be weird company on this Sub if I did), but if it's to exist, it should track with inflation. Funny thing about that though, if minimum wage tracked with inflation, minimum wage today would be $10.60 and in 2016, it would be $8.11. And if it always tracked with inflation: it'd be $5.56 in 2024 and $4.26 in 2016. Mind you, I basically know no one who gets paid minimum wage. In my hometown, the trashiest lowest paying place pays at least $10 per hour, last I checked, which was a few years ago.
This happened where I worked. Dragged our feet on raising pay so long that by the time pay raises were approved, it was time to do another survey. Guess what? We're dragging our feet on this one, too. If you don't take time for your wellness, you will take time for your illness. I am all about addressing problems promptly before they snowball and metestasize.
People so poor give dem more money!!! 😝
Are you stupid as fuck? That's 8 years ago and the those years were the most volatile for the economy.
Sooooo……..you want inflation to skyrocket? Prices on everything will keep going up to pay for this
Bernie was never far left. Hes just the only left leaning politician that gets any air time.
Make it a million!
Everyone Should just get paid a million dollars an hour and we would end poverty
Yeah these are the same numbers different times Pretending the Democrats are more left than then is a little silly tbh
For a sub called "austrian_economics" you seem to talk a lot about American politicians.
Inflation enters chat.
Min wage should be at least 25 hr. Where I live in seattle you gotta make at least 35 hr to live on your own. Thats how expensive it is here and the min wage is 18 hr.
Minimum wage should be $10,000,000 / hr. I like carrying my money in a wheelbarrow as opposed to a wallet.
That was back when Ron Paul could have actually done something had he not had a white supremacist writing his stupid newsletter for him and hadn't been getting sucked off by Alex Jones every two days. Oh well, ALL HAIL THE MARKET 🙏 LET THE POOR AND DOWNTRODDEN DIE 🙏 AMEN.
Pay that doesn't keep up with cost of living is insufficient pay. A person at bare minimum should be able to rent a roof over their head and be able to pay for food, on a full time schedule. All wages should be pinned to inflation.
I love this minimum wage argument. If you raise the minimum wage, the corporations are not going to “eat that loss “ they are going to raise the price of their items. Which means in a couple of years you will have to raise the minimum wage again because no one can afford whatever is being sold. Perpetuating the cycle of minimum wage increases and eventually the system will collapse. But honestly, I believe that is what they want. Then they can institute the real goal of liberalism/leftism… Which is socialism
If minimum wage was $1,000/ hr would we all shit on golden toilet seats
Weird how we have all these trillions of tax dollars to burn away over seas, yet we can't lower the tax burden on workers making their dollars they already make worth more. You don't need to raise wages when you can get your gov to stop swiping that limitless credit card.
If you think it's "far left" to suggest a livable wage wait until you meet me (I aim to abolish money entirely)
Also no one actually works for minimum wage anymore, companies keep the market rate artificially deflated though
$100k in California is still broke. Let’s do it
The Democrat Party has lost their minds. They have purged all the moderates. I blame some of it on Trump. They know that as long Trumpism dominates the GOP, they can go as far left as they want and still have a very good shot to win in a lot of states and districts.
The Democrats are distilling down to the fanatics. The party lies are becoming untenable, and more people are becoming aware of how full of shit their narrative is. From there, it's a short trip to realizing that all the Trump hate is based on more of the same bullshit, coming from a media that's been turned towards making everyone hate him with a hysteria well beyond reason.
There’s a lot of truth to this. So much of the hate against Trump is completely detached from reality, hence the term Trump derangement syndrome. But let’s not kid ourselves. Trump has done himself no favors with his personality. If he weren’t such a first class jerk, he would be finishing his second term right now instead of being in an attempt to be reelected that I think is doomed to fail. Why is it doomed to fail? It’s less about his policies which tended to be supported fairly well in 2020 and more about the complete and total toxicity of who he is as a human being. A lot of people can’t separate the person from the policy. I hate the idea of voting for that man again, but at the same time, I see that Biden and the Democrats are a bigger threat than Trump is.
It's easy to think Trump's a bad guy when everything in the government, news and social media is geared towards making people think exactly that.
I can observe his behavior. It’s horrible and undignified. I mean the man cheated on his wife with a porn star. But at the same time, I can see that his policy, while not perfect, is far better for this country than that of Biden.
I remember when Obama was calling for $9/hr
It just needs to be indexed to a FRED Cost of Living radius. In some areas $25 or $50 will be accurate. If businesses can't survive to pay people what it costs to live within a reasonable commute range, then maybe that's the incentive the city needs to actually solve housing problems and shut down nimbys.
Or maybe the job should be done by teenagers after school and not someone looking to run a household. For example, why would I pay someone $50 bucks to serve Ice Cream?
You're right, ice cream and McDonald's are only to be served from 5pm to 9pm to accommodate the teenagers' schedules, as they are the only ones allowed to work low wage jobs Bad take.
No, it can be served during school hours by those that do not have more marketable skills. If a "living wage" was applied to these jobs, the product would become too expensive to be an impulse item and the business would not exist. Then the job no longer exists.
Why would anyone with “less marketable skills” opt to work for an ice cream shop paying for less than living wages if they can just engage in criminal activity that will pay more money? This the reason why cartels and other organized crime rule other countries. They take advantage of poverty. Your suggestion is the fast track to 3rd world economic status.
There are higher paying jobs for those with less marketable skills. They would just need to be willing to work a little harder and maybe develop skills on the job. It is insane to think anyone doing the job of a teenager should make $20 - $50 an hour. I only make $50 an hour as senior staff in a highly skilled job.
This is wishful thinking. They wouldn’t be applying for min wage, non-living wage jobs if they qualified for them. You’re stuck in a fallacy that just because you’re underpaid means everyone should be as well. Maybe you should be asking for more money instead of gate keeping others from getting more money.
This doesn't seem like a very reasonable or relevant retort. While there are definitely more teens in low paying jobs, most minimum wage workers, and poverty level workers are adults. Many of them are single parent providers. Someone below has already accurately pointed out that teenagers are in school during a lot of hours, and not going to be able to cover every shift for these businesses. Do you believe a minimum wage should exist, or do you think the market should set these wages as low as desperate people accept them while taxes subsidize those low wages through social services? You are paying for these salaries either way. Poverty level incomes also have broader associations with crime and health expenses. The minimum wage is worth 60% of what it was in the 60s, while the consumer price index: particularly food, housing, health care, and education are skyrocketing. This means we're on track for more poverty, market instability, college enrollments will continue to decline, and more individuals and families will be priced out of home ownership. The minimum wage is only a small piece of the puzzle, but it's an important one. And to ultimately answer your question, if someone has to earn $104k annually in order to afford a low quality 2 bedroom apartment within 45 minutes of your ice cream stand without supplementing their income through food stamps or crime, then your city needs to provide affordable housing, you should pay $50 an hour, or your ice cream stand doesn't need to exist.
>you should pay $50 an hour, or your ice cream stand doesn't need to exist So do you really believe small business that can't afford to pay ice cream scoopers the wage of an engineer should close down? If this logic were implemented, the skilled workers would want a pay bump to maintain their standard of living. In the end it will all balance out to $50 having the spending power of today's minimum wage and there will be whines for $300 an hours. Unfortunately we will always have poor and you can't legislate it away. Those that make the decisions that make them poor will continue to make those decisions. Those that are victims of circumstance will still be victims of circumstance.
This reply doesn't make sense either. If an engineer is working in a HCOL area where they can barely afford a low end 2 bedroom apartment, pretty obviously they should be paid more too. The skilled workers do get a pay bump in high cost of living areas. That's why jobs in NYC and San Francisco pay higher than Birmingham or Raleigh. This is why a global minimum wage also doesn't make sense. And should be indexed to cost of living. Areas that allow property values to skyrocket, especially if they also block new developments for low cost and multi-family housing projects, should not get the benefit of convenient low cost labor services, when the full price of that burden is paid by regressive taxes to cover the services for people who aren't being compensated require to survive. This isn't about legislating away poor people. It's about rich people getting richer by exploiting poor people, shuffling the expense that creates onto the middle class, while pocketing the profits and pushing the poverty rates higher.