I merely brought up the possiblity of other incentives besides listening to their constituents and you immediately attacked me. If you left that out imagine the cordiality we would have in a discussion. You attacked me first.
Couldn't the extra costs be offset by increased economic activity? Giving the lowest wage workers in the country more money, a group of people who tend to spend most of their earnings, means more increased foot traffic to these small businesses?
You did not merely bring up the possibility. Nobody attacked you but try and stay on topic, this is not about who is in the pocket of corporations it's about the merits of raising the minimum wage to 15 and if it should be added to this bill.
The merits of adding to this bill is simply that there is no other avenue especially when the Democrats against adding it to this bill also believe in keeping the fillibuster which means they effectively don't want any chance of raising the minimum wage. And a 15 dollar federal minimum wage shouldn't be controversial when the fed minimum wage has no where matched inflation. Joe Manchin must hate his constituents. They already are some of the lowest wage constituents in the country. And yes you started the initial salvo by saying making that snide remark about me disagreeing with a politician.
It's so weird that it is controversial right now. The fact that Mitt Romney, and Joe Manchin are countering with an increase that is between 10 and 13 an hour just shows even they know this is something that is a must... not a Democratic pet project. They know it has to be done, and are trying to shave off a couple bucks in the process so they can go home, and sell that they care about the Conservative angle so they beat those nasty socialist dems. The CBO projection that it'll cost millions of jobs is still not really considering employee Demand for those jobs, and corporations who can adjust their financial planning to accommodate. Super small businesses that hire the minimum wage are surely going to get some coverage in the Covid bill to help them through the next 12 months so they can adjust their books before 2022. Even then we are talking about a small percentage of companies such as your local mom and pop driving range, etc. Restaurants are still going to have the tipping loophole, there are few staff like dishwashers, and cooks who work for the minimum wage. Most are paid more than that anyways, or are part of the tip share process. The minimum wage increase more than anything is affecting the government subsidies that we THE TAX PAYERS give to large corporations like WalMart who pay the minimum wage, and their workers then have to file for Tax payer subsidies under SS. That's the reason why this is a no-brainer politically for a Mitt Romney true conservative. He's trying to have it both ways as a conservative now by getting the min wage to 11 or 12 bucks an hour, but you see right there that he knows Tax Payer subsidizing of the large majority of corporate min wage workers is a problem that needs to be fixed.
Yes - to a degree. But not in Manchin's mind. And he's right to some extent. Some businesses will benefit, but others will get hurt (especially non-consumer businesses). So while overall you're right, there'd still be a lot of market disruption with some businesses booming and other industries being a mess. Like with any government policy, there would be winners and losers even if it's an overall win. Manchin seems focused on preventing the losers. Given the state of West Virginia and how so many changes in recent decades have left the state for dead in many ways, I can understand where he's coming from. I think having tax breaks for the next few years is workable solution if it helps get minimum wage hikes passed and helps smooth the transition. How to target those breaks properly to the struggling businesses instead of the thriving ones is a little more complex though. I think we have to keep in mind that a $15 minimum wage is more than a 100% increase in the minimum wage over a fairly short period of time (3 years, I think?). And getting rid of minimum tipped wages (which are like $3/hr or something) is a 500% increase. Those are massively disruptive for any business model, especially in red states that haven't already hiked wages to $10 or $11 or whatever.
The non consumer end businesses will feel the trickle down effects of increased economic activity. Can you specifically point to non-consumer end small businesses that employ a large amount of min wage workers?
This is from 2013, but FWIW: Industries may eventually get the trickle down - but they have to advance those costs before that money eventually trickles down from economic growth. A cleaning crew, for example, may not be able to immediately raise prices on businesses they service who are dealing with their own increased costs. That's the period where the tax subsidies makes sense - getting those businesses through the rocky transition years.
I mean we have advanced the costs of trickle down to the average American when we decrease tax burdens of corporations and subsidize many of their industries. And then we pretend that the trickle down worked because we see gdp growth numbers and stock market growth. Most of those occupations are not owned by small ma and pa small businesses besides the first one which has the largest amount of min wage workers. Those industries can advance the cost just like the common American had to advance the costs of deregulation, lower tax burdens for corporations and subsidizing. What's the fed interest rate now? It's very cheap to get investment loans. Let them advance the cost. For once let's have the economy grow based on increases in disposable income of the average American rather than economic growth based on increased consumer debt.
Sure - you can insist on that with no compromise. And then you won't get Manchin, Synema, or any Republicans and you'll be stuck with a $7.25/hr minimum wage. It doesn't seem like a good outcome for anyone, but it's certainly an option. This is where Bernie rhetoric meets the reality of governing.
No compromise would be 24 dollars an hour to keep pace with productivity. https://cepr.net/the-24-an-hour-minimum-wage/ Obviously we can comprise from that figure because we understand that not all productivity is due to increased productivity from min wage workers but rather manufacturing technology increasing effiency of production. So 15 would be the comprise. We already started from a compromised position.
And don't give me the bs about "reality of governing". Not every developed country allows complete undue influence of corporations on our legislative process with unlimited campaign donations being allowed as long is it's in the form of a PAC. This is a uniquely a American governing issue that many moderates accept as normal and is why for the past 50 years things like housing, education and healthcare have severely outpaced inflation, increasing the debt burden of the common American resulting in more extremism as we advance by decade.
This is a uniquely a American governing issue that many moderates accept as normal and is why for the past 50 years things like housing, education and healthcare have severely outpaced inflation, increasing the debt burden of the common American resulting in more extremism as we advance by decade.[/QUOTE] None of this addresses the issue that you still need to get Manchin and Synema on board if you want this done through reconciliation, or 60 total votes if you want to do it after. Complaining about PACs or how other countries operate or whatever other issues you want to talk about is nice for campaign fodder - but it does literally zero to get a minimum wage through. If you goal is actually figure out a way to get something through that will help people, then the reality of governing - yes, in the US system with all its flaws - is vitally important. Otherwise, you're just screaming into the wind and will be doing the same thing in 2022, 2024, and forever onward.
The minimum wage doesn't exist to keep pace with productivity. That's not its purpose and there would be no logical reason to tie those things together.
"Campaign fodder'. Dude your apathy about this issue reflects a society that will continue on this downward trend of wealth inequality where your moderate reform will no longer be on the table where we will eventually have a Bolshevik style violent revolution. Senima's and Manchin's rhetoric reflects a constituency that has been bombarded by investment firm think tanks, industry funded ads, and publicly traded corporate owned media companies brainwashing them.
We need another blitz of starving single white female mothers to get this ball rolling much like when certain welfare programs were introduced. Might not be PC in this day and age, but it still brings hime the bacon.
Yep... and you still need those two votes or rely on the GOP. It's pretty obvious what's going to happen, either minimum wage is increased to something around $11.50/12.50 or it becomes attached to a future bill.
I see you still have no solutions at all to actually achieve a minimum wage increase. Keep acting like you're standing up for something while accomplishing nothing at all - maybe you can feel good about yourself while other people deal with the consequences.
Is your solution to do absolutely nothing for now because you may not get what you actually want? I support everyone protesting, doing whatever possible, to push politicians to work for the people, but it seems to me that you may not support compromise, although in your mind (based on you $24/hr article posted), you already did compromise. It doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't mean I like the way our system is geared right now, but not compromising won't do anything for those that are on minimum wage. I rather compromise and also work on making the system work for the people. I think @Major position is just the realistic world we live in. Otherwise, what would be your solution?
