2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMinimum Wage should not be a static number.
Last edited Sat Jun 25, 2016, 10:28 AM - Edit history (1)
Minimum wage should be a number adjusted each year to inflation such that a person working 40 hours a week for 48 weeks should not live in poverty. It is really that simple. No business should be allowed to hire someone and pay them a poverty wage. Presently the number to keep someone out of poverty is $15 or more.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)OKNancy
(41,832 posts)unless they voted a third time...
Karen Finney ?@finneyk 8h8 hours ago
Karen Finney Retweeted
WRONG! $15 minimum wage is IN the platform!
-----------
Karen Finney ?@finneyk 8h8 hours ago
Karen Finney Retweeted Kerry
It was in platform draft from the start, that vote was on wording. It's in there and strong.Karen Finney added,
Kerry @kerravan
@finneyk Did they add it back in after voting against it earlier today?
Karen Finney ?@finneyk 8h8 hours ago
Karen Finney Retweeted Lilia Villa
Not true - From expanding social security, Wall Street, $15 min wage, the death penalty, EITC and more ...
pipoman
(16,038 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)Rep. Keith Ellison, who was appointed to the committee by Sanders, proposed an amendment to the DNC’s platform that would make support for a $15 per hour federal minimum wage absolutely unambiguous.
The platform originally simply stated that the Democratic Party hopes to “raise and index the minimum wage,” with an earlier implication that this could be $15. Ellison proposed that the language be made clearer and stronger, changed from mere support to a demand to “raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and index it.”
The audience attending the public hearing applauded in response to Rep. Ellison’s amendment.
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/25/clinton_appointees_oppose_15_minimum_wage_amendment_in_democratic_platform_sanders_surrogates_back_it/
pipoman
(16,038 posts)$15 in San Francisco is poverty, in Cheyenne Wyoming it is a good living wage. One size fits all is a failure and waste of time.
MH1
(17,600 posts)You raise an excellent point. I rec'd the OP because I think whatever the minimum wage is, it needs to be indexed to inflation.
No system is going to be perfect, but we should try to address the largest factors. Which would probably include the regional issue.
On the other hand, Cheyenne isn't very crowded so having a minimum wage that provides a good living might not be a bad thing. Might make it worth it for people to move there for jobs. (Just trying to look at it from different angles),
pipoman
(16,038 posts)I can speak about most of Kansas and Nebraska that 30 less than 20 miles outside of any city...Lincon/Omaha, Topeka, KC/Lawrence, Wichita..maybe Kearney...the cost of living plumets. Transportation times for work and essential services is very low, housing os very low, and utilities are often cooperatives or municipal services. Raw food costs are pretty static, but restaurant prices are lower than metro areas. You can rent a decent 1 br apartment for $500. There is no horrible conditions in most towns in these 2 states. People go to work and take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.
For the most part, the only people working for minimum wage are kids, convicts, and some people receiving public services.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)$16,990 is the per capita income in Norfolk Nebraska.
While Manhattan NY is firmly $100,000.
If minimum wage is $10 in Norfolk, it should be $60 or $70 in Manhattan to have the same impact as $10 in Norfolk...
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)This about a living wage, not identical numbers. Cost of living is higher in cities.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)New York physicians are paid more than those in Alabama for same service.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)15 an hour sucks everywhere
kerry-is-my-prez
(8,133 posts)In San Francisco, you couldn't afford the cardboard box.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Ffs, if it didn't suck people would never try to do better. The question is what a minimal quality of life costs in a given area. In rural Nebraska 2 people making $10 can live significantly better than 2 people earning $15 in NYC or LA...
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)i say - some advocate for cruelty
Matt_R
(456 posts)I say we double your numbers $20 minimum in Nebraska and $30 Minimum in NYC or LA.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)My son just cut his expenses by 1/3 and has a nicer apartment just by taking a roomate. Roomates don't give all of the economies of actual couples sharing everything but 2 or more people sharing expenses should be the norm for low paid people.
It really doesn't matter much what the minimum is as long as it is weighted by the local cost of living and not a ridiculous national one size fits all...
That said, a minimum should allow for a healthy but minimal standard of living.
Matt_R
(456 posts)for a "minimal standard of living." I must be misunderstanding your meaning.
Igel
(35,300 posts)Depends on what you think "needs" are.
Matt_R
(456 posts)By that I'm asking how to do it solo without any friends, family or going into debt. Add in a savings for emergencies, and a retirement. It just can't be done.
Edit also how do you come up with 29k? I'm seeing 22.5K after taxes, possibly less.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)Hillary has already mentioned profit sharing and stronger unions as dynamic ways to increase salaries.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Johnny2X2X
(19,038 posts)Yes, she did, so did Sanders. You can make it whatever you want, but if it's not tied to inflation we'll end up right back here in another decade or less.
$15, 12$, who knows what that number is. I doubt $15 can become law in this country right now, so the Dems may have to be pragmatic and settle on something like $11 or $12, but tie it to inflation and change it every year. $12 but tied to inflation would be a heck of a lot better than $15, but not tied to inflation.
My guess is that major compromises will have to be made to get anything at all. I bet we get something a little over $10 an hour, but it's tied to CPI, but not 100%, they'll put limits on it and maybe Reps will be able to demand that if it is tied to CPI then it only gets recalculated every other year.
And it would be easy to tie it to a cost of living index of some sort to have it vary by location. IF I had it my way it would be around $15, but could be slightly higher or lower depending on the location of the business and it would be tied to CPI, but also have something built in where the annual increase could exceed CPI if some other index signaled it to do so.
The American worker is simply not being paid for the value that they create. Our country is the richest in the history of the World, if you work full-time you deserve to earn a dignified living, there is no excuse.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Uncertainty is not good for business owners. But I do believe it should fought on a local regional level. Fed should set the floor while encouraging regions to go higher.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)If they were as concerned about the cost of living as much as the employees, theme everyone would be better off.
Igel
(35,300 posts)For a few reasons.
Deflation is bad, and inflation is a hedge against deflation.
Inflation makes future debt repayment less. That's considered good for those who take out loans. And that would include the federal government.
Inflation makes holding cash stupid. It compels people to put it at least in demand deposit accounts, where it's available for loans.
It forces wages to rise, and that makes everybody think they're getting more even if they're getting the same.
Business does have an interest in keeping inflation down. It means they don't have to increase prices with no increase in profits and they don't have to increase wages. They don't have to reprint or re-price things. The only businesses with an interest in inflation are those with large loans that can raise prices. (Even then, there may be a lag and therefore a loss.)
pansypoo53219
(20,969 posts)i hate that bloody word to cheat workers. why no free? that really worked for centuries.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)It's not good for them? Guess they can't afford a business, then.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,338 posts)er, no, wait ...
George Eliot
(701 posts)Sometimes I think I should give up. Min wage and SS need to reflect the data - numbers - that describe how much it costs to live in an area. Peg both to cost of living...it's really not hard. Primarily housing costs and food. Everything else can be purchased from designer shops to thrift shops. And with single payor, we'd have a happiness number that matches social democracies world wide instead of being towards the bottom with Great Britain.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,338 posts)... then peg Social Security increases to things that affect seniors: health care, food, housing, long-term care. Min wage can be pegged to things that affect working-age people: housing, education, transportation, and of course, health care and housing.
Whoever calculates the increase in Social Security probably gets much better increases than the recipients. Same will happen with minimum wage.
George Eliot
(701 posts)Matt_R
(456 posts)That way when they vote themselves a raise we get a raise.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Last edited Sat Jun 25, 2016, 06:32 PM - Edit history (1)
If applied in, say, Bangladesh, that formula would result in mass unemployment; if applied in a sufficiently rich area it would miss the opportunity to raise the minimum wage higher.
The minimum wage should be set at the level where the tradeoff between good done by putting more money in the pockets of people in work and harm done by decreasing the number of jobs available is optimised. And that will be a lot lower in very poor countries than very rich ones.
Unfortunately, there isn't really much evidence to guess where that level is in America at the moment. I think it's probably safe to assume that it's quite a lot higher than the current $8ish level, on the grounds that so far the contribution to unemployment isn't even large enough to be measurable, but how much higher is essentially guesswork - I've heard people I respect arguing for anything from $12 to $15, and it's far from obvious, at least to an amateur like me, that it's not even higher than that.
More generally, the distinction between "living in poverty" and "not living in poverty" is not a cutoff. The more money you have, the better your life will be, and that's a continuous thing; moreover, that improvement is strongly sublinear, rather than everything going from completely appalling to basically all right as you pass some arbitrary threshold of "poverty".
People sometimes define "poverty" as a certain fraction of the median income. That makes good headlines, but it's an utterly dreadful way to actually think about how to measure living standards at the lower centiles in a society.
George Eliot
(701 posts)Figure it out regionally and set it to law. Then measure regularly and raise wage to equal the increase in cost of living. This isn't rocket science unless one chooses to make it so. The more money people make, the more they spend.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Physics is much better understood than economics.
Or rather, working out the level to set the minimum wage at that will do the most good and the least harm is extremely hard. It's entirely possible to simply pick a simple formula and use that, if you're willing to accept not getting the best possible results.
George Eliot
(701 posts)Problem is setting priorities and some people have a hard time doing that because they don't want to give up what benefits them for another's gain. That's what attracts so many to social democracies which do better and have higher happiness measures than US.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)We would rarely have recessions. The second half of the 20th century only saw two decades without a major financial meltdown. Since the great depression, each bubble grows larger and each recession grows deeper.
The 50s were going good, and the 90s were saved by the tech bubble. The 60s 70s and 80s each saw recessions, and this century started off with our first two decades in recession.
George Eliot
(701 posts)If cost of living in Sacramento goes up 1%, then adjustment should go up one percent. If cost of living goes up 8% in San Francisco, then adjustment should go up eight percent. In my situation and living in a very rapidly rising urban area, my paycheck goes half as far as my counterparts with the same job but in the eastern region of my state.
One size does not fit all. But I am good with starting at $15 because that is what it should be if are starting point is the highest it has ever been which is in the sixties when $8.00 (in today's dollars) was the min wage. We are woefully behind and need to catch up. As I've said before, employees should not be subsidizing my living expenses. There will be a ceiling because there has to be and the executives will have to take pay cuts if they want to keep selling their products profitably. Fine with me.
Igel
(35,300 posts)The official stats say that if you're one person making minimum wage you're *not* in poverty.
I don't know many people doing scut work making minimum wage for long. They usually get some token increase.
The problem is when you have people making minimum wage and for whom poverty is more than just needs but also includes wants, or when the person's supporting (alone) more than just herself.
(Of course, there's a lot of regional variation, so there really can't be a single minimum wage because the "average" income needed for squeaking above the poverty level has to vary. Similarly, any algorithm for calculating COLAs relies on averages, but the average person barely exists. If you're urban, you might want public transportation to be an important factor; if you're rural, you need a car or truck, and so gasoline and car payments matter more. However, the "common good" has to be common, I'd suppose, and if there's a single program it would become very complicated very quickly and in short order overwhelm the politicians and bureaucrats who have to implement, monitor, and maintain it.)
Socal31
(2,484 posts)But "unskilled" and entry level jobs are never going to pay enough to live comfortably on a single income.
They certainly should keep pace with inflation. What has happened in the last 50 years is disgusting.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)I would even prefer $12 with indexing to inflation over $15 with no indexing, because then we would not have to keep fighting this battle and having wages fall further and further behind inflation whenever Republicans are in charge.
