I think there are jobs that probably aren’t worth $15 an hour. So that baseline is likely too high in some places. I think we are underestimating just how many jobs will be replaced by computers (which would happen anyway, but this will accelerate it) and how much the cost of certain goods will go up because of this. There probably are some short term benefits, but soon enough I think the increased costs will negate the increased wages.
https://www.businessinsider.com/15-minimum-wage-wont-be-living-wage-many-families-cnbc-2021-2 https://livingwage.mit.edu/
How about a 4 level tier min wage that is federally set based on economic calculations for what a living wage would be for each individual county. 4 tiers - 12 / 14 / 16 / 18 $3 over and under the proposed 15. Make it inflation-adjusted and have a biannual review on the cost of living for every county. Low cost of living rural counties gets their manageable 12 an hour min wage, NYC/SF type areas get their needed 18 an hour min wages. Just a random idea
I missed this and I agree something has to done with the income inequity but can you direct me to something that explains why this causes inflation because from what I have read it has not caused inflation before.
Good question. I am traveling right now so I cannot get into it too deep but will look when I get back.
to a certain extent this system already exists in places with state minimum wage orders. Where I live in a rural county the minimum wage is currently $12.50 and in NYC it is currently $15/hr https://www.ny.gov/new-york-states-minimum-wage/new-york-states-minimum-wage
Right, but the idea I'm entertaining (in my head) is a federal system that has tiers calculated on actual - let's say median cost of living factors - for each individual county. Places like Austin/Houston/Dallas Tx for example having a min wage of 7.25 is fairly absurd compared to the cost of living, but it's what it is simply due to the political climate of the state/area. This is something I assume we fundamentally disagree on, you likely favor state control over these issues, but to me, that's clearly lacking it's 2021 and the min wage in Austin F'n Texas is 7.25. A federal system can turn this away from a partisan rhetoric match and more to an actual economic consideration.
I do think this is better left to the states, but mostly because the local contexts are so very different in terms of labor markets, relative cost of living, taxes, etc. I don't think a federal one-size-fits-all prescription works. The federal minimum wage is what? 7.25 an hour? the minimum wage hasn't been $7.25 an hour in New York state for well over a decade. Whatever level the Federal government would set--across the board--is likely to be inadequate in half of the country and overkill in the other half. If Austin's minimum wage in 2021 is truly and genuinely $7.25 . . . AND people are willing to work for $7.25 . . . and the labor market is such that the actual low-end wages being paid to unskilled, entry-level workers has NOT creeped up to 10, 11, or 12 dollars an hour . . . then that tells me the market in Austin is closer to the $7.25 end of the scale than you might think. But again, the objection is to a one-size-fits-all prescription. If the Federal Government were to institute a county-by-county tiered system like you describe, that's fine--but then it's a good example of the Federal Government being asked to do what a state government ought to be doing in the first place. I don't see how or why the Federal Government should be engaged in the minutia of wage controls at a county-by-county level of resolution.
Then these places won't have much of an issue with a federal min wage hike. It's the States and Counties that is well below the proposed wages that might have an issue (ie. still at $7.25).
It's not necessary a one size fit all. But of a sensible baseline. I would be okay with that baseline NOT being a "living wage" but a wage that at least protect tax payers from ponying up because companies (hello McD) decided to cheap it out on labor costs knowing that the welfare system paid by tax payers will pick up the slack.
You think if people are willing to work for X amount, then that means that's how we should set the minimum wage? I know you gave other examples, but this one stood out like a sore thumb to me.
I get that which I why I specifically thought of an idea that is not a one-size-fits-all, but a tier system, know what I'm saying?
I still believe this isn’t a good idea. You’re increasing expenses to businesses that are labor intensive and can’t afford it like retail, hospitality, and restaurants. Problem is those jobs should be done by high school, college, or young singles without kids. They were never meant to be careers but because the blue collar jobs left they have become careers for the poor. Infrastructure is the answer. Agree not to raise minimum wage and instead create jobs that pay much better than that by raising taxes on corporations and those that make over $400k. $7.25 is a joke but so is $15. Neither is a livable wage if you’re trying to raise a family. Leave $7.25 for the 16 year olds to have pocket change to buy fast food and fill up their gas tank.
again, if there isn't wage competition and people (willingly) work for $7.25, then your tiered system probably ought to be closer to the $7.25 end of the spectrum than to the $12 to $18 end of the spectrum. That's all I'm saying. Local context matters, which is why these conversations about top-down, federal impositions of wage controls are always controversial and divisive. In a rural community where the local labor market supports a bunch of high school kids working after-school jobs as cashiers in the local and locally-owned (read: not a megamarket) grocery store, for $7.25, then arguably it's a good thing for those high schoolers to have those jobs. Up the minimum wage from Washington, let's say doubling the minimum wage requirement, and all of a sudden that grocery store has to rethink his or her approach to cashiers. Perhaps it provides enough incentive for that store owner to borrow to put in the self-checkout machines that are nearly universal in more populated areas. And in that way lower-paying jobs may continue to disappear, in part due to labor expense and in part due to technological innovation. Most new McDonald's franchises no longer have an army of cashiers, but instead have the automated ordering system where the customer pays with a credit/debit card directly.
Banning child labor was controversial. In fact, banning international child labor is TODAY controversial. Local context matters, but a baseline also matter. The fed gov should be in the business of establishing a baseline when the local (context or not) refuses to do so. The question is what should that baseline be. This idea that the fed gov shouldn't be in that business, in having a baseline is something I totally disagree with (again, see child labor law: Fed Fair Labor Standard Act of 1938). My argument is that baseline should at least be where tax payers isn't on the hook via welfare programs.
you don't have to lecture me about child labor laws; I lecture on child labor laws in my classes. You also seem to be interpreting what I am saying as a BLANKET rejection of the very idea of a governmentally implemented minimum wage. I am NOT rejecting the idea of a minimum wage. I am nervous about expecting the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to do something that in my mind might be better left to local government. No more, no less.
I was interpreting it that way. And I will continue to use child labor as a benchmark for why fed gov should do something when the local gov won't. $7.25 yield a system where taxpayer bailout companies (maybe that's something we said okay for starter or small companies but not for the like of McD and Walmart).
Okay, how about an idea like mine PLUS a differentiated minors (14-17) wage minimum set at whatever 7 or 8 bucks? Would this be signed on by the BIG Os?
Walmart weighs in against 15/hr Walmart announced it would raise pay for some workers, while maintaining an $11 starting wage. CEO Doug McMillon said the raises would help the company create a "ladder of opportunity." He added that a $15 minimum wage should be paced in a way that benefits the US economy. Key lines are CEO Doug McMillon said the increases were designed to create a "ladder" system for worker promotions at the country's largest retailer and biggest private-sector employer. The raise, which will bring 425,000 associates' pay to between $13 and $19 per hour, will go into effect March 13. Over the past few years, competitors including Amazon, Target, and Costco have raised their minimum pay to $15 per hour after worker groups and labor advocates called for the increase. Walmart said its average pay in the US was above the $15 per hour threshold. "Avg pay" is above 15... which includes IT personnel, back office and middle management (and much higher). So they're saying, sure we can pay people 15 bucks, but we aint gonna bump the ass. managers or others hovering around 20 bucks (who probably worked their humps for 5 yrs plus to get that rate plus benefits.) Textbook way of making "the help" fight each other for extra few dollars/hr while execs depress "avg wages" with bonuses, options and perks that aren't fit into averages. I'm sure those middle age "libertarian" dead end managers will weigh in why 15 bucks is folly while holding onto their 60k salary. They've probably dun their mental math and can't pull in 75 despite the "inflationary bump" That's still fighting for scraps, but at least we are free... ...to riot.
Are you ignoring the demand side here? Higher wages for the poor who usually spend most of their earnings means increased injection of money into the economy such as people eating out more often. I agree that more infrastructure labor jobs would be great but also keep in mind that isn't a long term solution as automation becomes more ubiquitous.
