General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy not raise minimum wage to $10?
More than doubling it seems a bit crazy to some and would throw off the whole wage base. But if we raise it to $9 or $10, it would be hard to argue against it. Now I know 10 is a smaller number than 15, but 15 doesnt look like it happening.
drray23
(7,637 posts)All the bills under discussion raise it over a period of several years.
doc03
(35,364 posts)immediately.
marble falls
(57,204 posts)Elessar Zappa
(14,047 posts)for less than $15/hr but I think it should be at least $12.
regnaD kciN
(26,045 posts)...because any increase, even of a penny, now has to get ten Republican senators to support it. And if you think that's going to happen, you're dreaming. (And don't give me any talk of attaching it to "must-pass" legislation; if you haven't noticed, Republicans are quite satisfied with shutting down the government altogether rather than approving anything they don't like. And, this time, people whose lives will be affected by any such shutdown will blame us for being "intransigent." )
Nope, any raise in the minimum wage is dead, dead, dead -- at least until after the 2022 midterms. Or, for that matter, any positive change that can't be accomplished by executive order alone. And, if you think we're going to increase our majorities then, I have a bridge you might be interested in.
Elessar Zappa
(14,047 posts)Thats not the way I see it.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)Elessar Zappa
(14,047 posts)as in, theres no hope for the Dem Party in 2022, like that poster was saying. Im more optimistic. I think we can keep the House as long as Dems dont sit it out.
wellst0nev0ter
(7,509 posts)Then the Dem majority is dead next year.
Celerity
(43,497 posts)If you think there is not a type of bill that we can insert it into, then this means there will not be any arise for years UNLESS we can either elect a net plus 3 Dem senators in 2022 (to neutralise Sinema, Manchin, and Feinstein) PLUS retain the House and then convince 50 of the now 53 Dems to vote to bin the filibuster.
OR (and I think this is more realistic perhaps)
modify the filibuster (not bin it altogether) and get those 3 blockers (Manchin, Sinema, and Feinstein) to sign onto modifications, and THEN pass it that way.
Options for modifying
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/03/02/manchin-filibuster-never-sinema/
Instead of naming and shaming them, Democrats might consider looking at what Manchin and Sinema like about the filibuster. Sinema recently said, Retaining the legislative filibuster is not meant to impede the things we want to get done. Rather, its meant to protect what the Senate was designed to be. I believe the Senate has a responsibility to put politics aside and fully consider, debate, and reach compromise on legislative issues that will affect all Americans. Last year, Manchin said, The minority should Instead of naming and shaming them, Democrats might consider looking at what Manchin and Sinema like about the filibuster. Sinema recently said, Retaining the legislative filibuster is not meant to impede the things we want to get done. Rather, its meant to protect what the Senate was designed to be. I believe the Senate has a responsibility to put politics aside and fully consider, debate, and reach compromise on legislative issues that will affect all Americans. Last year, Manchin said, The minority should have input thats the whole purpose for the Senate. If you basically do away with the filibuster altogether for legislation, you wont have the Senate. Youre a glorified House. And I will not do that. If you take their views at face value, the goal is to preserve some rights for the Senate minority, with the aim of fostering compromise. The key, then, is to find ways not to eliminate the filibuster on legislation but to reform it to fit that vision. Here are some options:
Make the minority do the work.
Currently, it takes 60 senators to reach cloture to end debate and move to a vote on final passage of a bill. The burden is on the majority, a consequence of filibuster reform in 1975, which moved the standard from two-thirds of senators present and voting to three-fifths of the entire Senate. Before that change, if the Senate went around-the-clock, filibustering senators would have to be present in force. If, for example, only 75 senators showed up for a cloture vote, 50 of them could invoke cloture and move to a final vote. After the reform, only a few senators in the minority needed to be present to a request for unanimous consent and to keep the majority from closing debate by forcing a quorum call. The around-the-clock approach riveted the public, putting a genuine spotlight on the issues. Without it, the minoritys delaying tactics go largely unnoticed, with little or no penalty for obstruction, and no requirement actually to debate the issue. One way to restore the filibusters original intent would be requiring at least two-fifths of the full Senate, or 40 senators, to keep debating instead requiring 60 to end debate. The burden would fall to the minority, whod have to be prepared for several votes, potentially over several days and nights, including weekends and all-night sessions, and if only once they couldnt muster 40 the equivalent of cloture debate would end, making way for a vote on final passage of the bill in question.
Go back to the present and voting standard.
A shift to three-fifths of the Senate present and voting would similarly require the minority to keep most of its members around the Senate when in session. If, for example, the issue in question were voting rights, a Senate deliberating on the floor, 24 hours a day for several days, would put a sharp spotlight on the issue, forcing Republicans to publicly justify opposition to legislation aimed at protecting the voting rights of minorities. Weekend Senate sessions would cause Republicans up for reelection in 2022 to remain in Washington instead of freeing them to go home to campaign. In a three-fifths present and voting scenario, if only 80 senators showed up, only 48 votes would be needed to get to cloture. Add to that a requirement that at all times, a member of the minority party would have to be on the floor, actually debating, and the burden would be even greater, while delivering what Manchin and Sinema say they want more debate.
Narrow the supermajority requirement.
Another option would be to follow in the direction of the 1975 reform, which reduced two-thirds (67 out of a full 100) to three-fifths (60 out of 100), and further reduce the threshold to 55 senators still a supermajority requirement, but a slimmer one. Democrats might have some ability to get five Republicans to support their desired outcomes on issues such as voting rights, universal background checks for gun purchases or a path to citizenship for Dreamers. A reduction to 55, if coupled with a present-and-voting standard would establish even more balance between majority and minority. In a 50-50 Senate, and with the GOP strategy clearly being united opposition to almost all Democratic priorities, Biden and Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) need the support of Manchin and Sinema on a daily basis. They wont be persuaded by pressure campaigns from progressive groups or from members of Congress. But they might consider reforms that weaken the power of filibusters and give Democrats more leverage to enact their policies, without pursuing the dead end of abolishing the rule altogether.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)JDC
(10,133 posts)There has not been a lift since 2009. Saying we are now "doubling it" discounts the fact that there has been 0.0 increase in a dozen years. .50 a year since '09 would be $13+. So $15 is not really a stretch at all.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/minimum-wage/history/chart
Typo
Celerity
(43,497 posts)The minimum wage now would be over 20 usd per hour to equal the rate they were paid then.
Plus even a public, in-state uni now costs well over 100K usd for a 4 year degree when all expenses are accounted for.
Johnny2X2X
(19,114 posts)If Bernie can only get $11 and takes it, its an easy sell to the public. But you cannot get nothing because Republicans now want to raise it too and will as soon as they get some power and then take credit. Get a good deal now and then raise it more later.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)Johnny2X2X
(19,114 posts)Romney and several other have their own proposal they want to bring for a vote. You can get 10 Reps if you do it right. But $11 or maybe $12 is all they will go to. So you take it.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)I hope we can. But I don't see 10 votes. Maybe five or six.
applegrove
(118,778 posts)payments. If they leave salaries at 7.25 then they can't compete with the $300 a week. Hmmmm I wonder what employers could do to get more employees? Hmmmm???? It would not take legislation. Each individual business has the power to do it on their own. Hmmmm??
$8.60 an hour equals $300 a week if each week is 35 hours.
$15 an hour is $525 a week. That is closer to turning people into consumers and not dependant on government subsidies.
twin_ghost
(435 posts)Businesses have had a free ride for 12 years.
JI7
(89,264 posts)applegrove
(118,778 posts)TheFarseer
(9,326 posts)Raising to $10 is almost a 40% raise and theres enough votes to do it.
Nittersing
(6,373 posts)regnaD kciN
(26,045 posts)We can't pass it without it being subject to the filibuster anymore.
We can't do reconciliation again, so it's going to need 60 votes for cloture. Anyone propose to me which ten Republican senators are going to defect and go against their own leadership...especially knowing that President Biden and the Democrats will get the credit? Dream on. This was our one chance to pass it, and we fell short even only having to depend on our own Party to stand behind our President.
applegrove
(118,778 posts)Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)applegrove
(118,778 posts)Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)means we need 60 votes and we won't get them sadly.
Celerity
(43,497 posts)HOW MANY RECONCILIATION BILLS CAN CONGRESS CONSIDER IN CALENDAR YEAR 2021?
With Democrats now in control of both the House and Senate, both houses moved quickly in early February to pass a budget resolution for fiscal year 2021. (Vice President Harris broke a tie in the Senate.) The resolution clears the path for a reconciliation bill that includes most, or at least a lot, of President Bidens $1.9 trillion plan to extend emergency unemployment benefits, send $1,400 per person checks to most households, beef up the public health system, and send aid to state and local governmentsand would not require any Republican votes in the Senate provided all 50 Democrats vote yes. The passage of a budget resolution does not, however, mean that the Biden plan will be enacted as proposed. Congressional committees arent bound by the details of the resolution, and members who voted in favor of the resolution could still vote against the final reconciliation bill later in the year (as has happened occasionally in the past).
Democrats may craft a second budget resolution (technically for fiscal year 2022) and a second reconciliation bill later this year, one that would include longer-run elements of Bidens Build Back Better program, including investments in infrastructure and perhaps tax increases.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)Sucha NastyWoman
(2,754 posts)The minimum non-livable wage.
Hassler
(3,390 posts)HR1 in as well. Dare the GOPee to vote against the troops and the military gravy train.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)we can't get 60 votes.
dem4decades
(11,304 posts)wage for each state. It came out to about $16.00 an hour in California ranging down to $12.50 for a state like West Virginia. Let's face it, each state is different and a one size fits all just doesn't cut it. Again someone told me about this proposal, if you have a link or a correction please feel free to correct me.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Raise it to around $10 immediately, then get to $15 within four years, then index future adjustments to the cost of living index (which means it will likely automatically increase in the future).
I just look at people who insist of the get it all in one shot method and shake my head. They would get to $15, then 30 years later the minimum wage would still be $15, where with automatic indexing, it would be higher and businesses would be able to adjust their cost structure.
Celerity
(43,497 posts)and IF we took another 12, 13 years (like we are atm, IF we even pass a raise this year) to raise it again, you are looking at sub 5 (maybe sub 4) usd per hour in purchasing power in the mid 2030's compared to 7.25 in 2009.
To get to a point where we actually can raise it and then do some piss-arsed 2.75 usd raise spread out over 2 or 3 years is political suicide.
Klaralven
(7,510 posts)MichMan
(11,971 posts)Don't need to wait for the Federal government to pass anything.
JI7
(89,264 posts)JI7
(89,264 posts)for tipped employees . So that can work out really well for people who might be lucky enough to get jobs in certain places that tip well.
ecstatic
(32,731 posts)From my understanding it's supposed to be raised incrementally anyway, so why not just start with the first increment and go from there?
mitch96
(13,924 posts)and Incrementally move down to your real number.
YMMV
m
Bettie
(16,124 posts)if they pay their workers as little as possible a sad.
Can't have them being sad about their terrible business plans.
BusyBeingBest
(8,059 posts)My son has a bachelors and works at an entry-level job in his field and earns 18/hour. The whole country's wage scale would be fucked up, like you say.