You're viewing a single thread.
$15/hr is 10 years ago, now it should be 25
It's needs to be raised and indexed to inflation.
Raising it alone is not enough. We'll just spend another thirty years fighting for the next increase.
Some democratic states have actually done that like California and New York. There's been bills from some dems representatives to do that federally in the past
If dems get a tricecta, I suspect some dems would push for that again
And then other Dems would block it! Sorry, I have no faith in good things happening. Still voting Dem though.
I was pleasantly surprised with some of the bills Biden tried to pass while he had the absolute slimmest of majorities 3 years ago. My disdain for conservative Democrats was also very much strengthened through that experience...
Agreed, and that's why I vote as progressive as I can in primaries.
Primaries? Democrats apparently don't need primaries. I'm all for living wages though btw. I'd say $30/hr as of today.
Ideally, it would.
But there is also a perverse incentive in politics against permanent solutions - as once Dems pass a law increasing/indexing the minimum wage, it’ll eventually become normalised after a couple cycles and people will fall back into their old ways and switch back to voting against their interests (GOP) due to social issues.
If they solve the problem they cant campaign on it. Xeno paradox ish.
And Arizona
Permanently Deleted
This is hiw businesses win this game. Whine about it to the point the amount you're asking isn't even enough, demand subsidies to increase wages and then give pretty much the same they paid a few years ago, pocketing the rest.
"Business innovation"
Perhaps part of the problem is a fixation on the specific number and lack of consideration for the material needs of the people. How much does it cost to live in your city? That's the minimum wage. Is that $120/day? Is that $200/day? Is that $5000/day? That needs to be the wage floor.
Feel like you're spending too much money on labor? See about reducing the cost of living, then we can talk.
Minimum wage means minimum livable wage, and "livable" isn't the same as "survivable".
Anyone working should be able to afford the amenities we call living, not just scraping by. Children, transportation, food, healthcare, reasonable recreation, savings, retirement, self development and actualization. All of it.
People not working should be able to survive, and we should do everything we can to get them to that "living" point as well. Disability or a bad labor market shouldn't close someone off from eating, having children or going to the doctor.Minimum wage means minimum livable wage
Whether you think that ought to be the case is a separate matter, but as it is, it does not mean that, nor has it ever meant that (in the US at least), for as long as minimum wage existed.
Sure, you can find a quote or two from politicians back then saying otherwise, but as far as what actually passed as law, it's never been. Obviously after adjusting for inflation, the highest the minimum wage has ever been is $12.34, in 1968, and that was fleeting.
Just mentioning since most people don't seem to realize this is the case, and I've even seen a lot of people think the minimum wage was (relatively) much higher back in the post WWII years when things were very prosperous for the US. Fact is, in all those anecdotes about 'He raised a family of four on a single income from this random job', said job was paying WAY more than the minimum wage of the time.
Making the minimum wage $15 or more now is talked about like it brings things more in line with how they used to be, but in truth it would be an unprecedented new highest minimum wage ever (after adjusting for inflation, and yes, I do have to keep mentioning that, in my experience) even if we went 'only' to $15. Not saying that's bad or good, but it's important to be accurate about what is actually being proposed--if you're advocating for this and someone asks you 'why should it be raised to $15', the answer should not involve talk about how we're just trying to bring it back in alignment with where it used to be, relatively, because that's simply not true.
I agree. I don't see much point in raising the federal minimum wage beyond $15/hr until we make landlords extinct. As long as there are leeches who have free reign to charge whatever they want for a basic human necessity, any raises will just flow right into their already overstuffed pockets.
Genuine question, what is one supposed to do if they need a place to live but can't afford to buy an entire house, if not rent?
Seems like that 'middle option' needs to exist.
My previous comment did advocate for going all scorched earth on landlords, but I do see a space for them to exist in a heavily reduced capacity. And they'd actually have to work for a living. Apartment buildings would still exist, so individuals (NOT corporations) would be allowed to own a building of units and rent them out, with the stipulations that they personally live on site, they personally do the leasing and/or maintenance work themselves, and they pay themselves no greater income than 3x the median cost of the rent for their units. Any profit that isn't refunded to their tenants or used to improve the property is taxed at 100% with zero deductions.
That way rental properties are still available, people can still make a living doing the actual work that goes into renting (leasing and maintenance), and there is no incentive or even ability for someone or a group of someones to use residential property to steal passive income.
Yeah, fixating a number is not the best, that was my point. We should have minimum dividand attached to an index.
$25 minimum. Those two jobs are much more valuable than tech project managers.
i say $30, easy, maybe more.
I live in a VHCOL area and $30 actually gets you the ability to save... If you rent a garage "apartment" and keep a partially empty fridge... Yet those salaries are still non-existent for anyone outside of a profession.
Let's make it a nice round $30/hr and call it a day.
We should shoot for $60/hr so by the time that passes in 25 years it might be only slightly below a living wage.