Democrats should immediately confront the minimum wage rate.

[danielpalos]

Democrats regained the congressional House. Now they should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate issue.

I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.

It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.

Possible House’s negotiating positions:

The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.

The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.

I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.

Respectfully, Supposn

I agree with you. The republicans haven't allowed the minimum wage to increase since the first part of this century. All increases since then were done at the state level. The first to do it was the city of SeaTac. In Washington. They did it by ballot initiative. Then Seattle followed but politicians did it instead of the people by ballot initiative. The republicans all over the nation screamed bloody murder and predicted that Seattle and SeaTac would be destroyed. They weren't and many other states followed. By the way, Washington by state law has to have the highest state minimum wage in the nation. If any state increases their minimum wage above Washington, by law in Washington the minimum wage automatically increases a certain percentage above that other state's minimum wage.

The states that have higher wages are the more successful and prosperous states.

Increasing wages is so long over due. It will raise the standard of living for millions of workers in this nation. It will also increase tax revenue which is very much needed.

The type of automatic increases you described should be law so that workers will never go this long without an increase in pay and the wage gap won't get this lopsided.

Republicans scream they're capitalists but don't know one of the first rules of capitalism. Capitalism requires the free flow of money throughout the population to succeed. When you concentrate most of the money in very few hands, capitalism fails. Which results in what Russia now has. Oligarchy and monopolies. Capitalism will kill itself if proper regulations aren't established. A minimum wage is one of those proper regulations.

Only real losers have need concern themselves with the minimum wage. Only about 3% of the workforce is effected by it.

.

We need an upward pressure on wages on an Institutional basis not Individual basis. We also need to shed low wage jobs that don't cover the cost of social services; around fourteen dollars an hour.

 

[Supposn]

Deadbeat losers who won't improve themselves have already priced themselves out of the low end labor market due to the flood of illegals the Dims have imported to bolster their voting base.

In my state, the minimum wage is 7.25. If pajama boi works 8 hours a day at 7.25, he'll get 58 bucks before tax and gas money. I can go to the Lowe's or Home Depot parking lot ANY MORNING of the year and hire illegals between the ages of 17 and 40 who will work their ass off 12 hours a day for 35 bucks. That's for unskilled labor. I can hire a skilled carpenter or painter for what pajama boi makes a day at minimum wage.

So tell me again why I should pay some whiny little bitch more than he's worth?

The low end labor market is flooded. There is more supply than demand so the price is low. Basic economics. Want to raise the price of low end labor? Lower the supply. Build the wall.

The post quoted above explains the necessity for the federal minimum wage rate.

MkTx, WheelAddict, Golfing Gator, WilliePete, and Grampa Murked U, you all may, (if you care to), refer to post #38.

WilliePete, rather than a wall that would be a sham to placate President Trump’s base, I’m in favor of exercising public domain and our federal government physically controlling our national borders. There should be constant surveillance by U.S. military training drones and other technology with advisements to our civilian Customs and Border patrol agencies.

Rather than tariffs that are too often contra-productive, I’m among the advocates of the improved version of a trade policy described by Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article. The substantially more market-driven policy would significantly reduce, if not eliminate our chronic annual trade deficits of goods while increasing our annual GDPs and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[OKTexas]

Democrats regained the congressional House. Now they should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate issue.

I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.

It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.

Possible House’s negotiating positions:

The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.

The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.

I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.

Respectfully, Supposn

I agree with you. The republicans haven't allowed the minimum wage to increase since the first part of this century. All increases since then were done at the state level. The first to do it was the city of SeaTac. In Washington. They did it by ballot initiative. Then Seattle followed but politicians did it instead of the people by ballot initiative. The republicans all over the nation screamed bloody murder and predicted that Seattle and SeaTac would be destroyed. They weren't and many other states followed. By the way, Washington by state law has to have the highest state minimum wage in the nation. If any state increases their minimum wage above Washington, by law in Washington the minimum wage automatically increases a certain percentage above that other state's minimum wage.

The states that have higher wages are the more successful and prosperous states.

Increasing wages is so long over due. It will raise the standard of living for millions of workers in this nation. It will also increase tax revenue which is very much needed.

The type of automatic increases you described should be law so that workers will never go this long without an increase in pay and the wage gap won't get this lopsided.

Republicans scream they're capitalists but don't know one of the first rules of capitalism. Capitalism requires the free flow of money throughout the population to succeed. When you concentrate most of the money in very few hands, capitalism fails. Which results in what Russia now has. Oligarchy and monopolies. Capitalism will kill itself if proper regulations aren't established. A minimum wage is one of those proper regulations.

Only real losers have need concern themselves with the minimum wage. Only about 3% of the workforce is effected by it.

.

We need an upward pressure on wages on an Institutional basis not Individual basis. We also need to shed low wage jobs that don't cover the cost of social services; around fourteen dollars an hour.

God you're such a dipstick. The minimum wage was designed for people with no work experience to get a foothold in the workforce. It was never intended to be a living wage and should never be a living wage.

.

 

[JWBooth]

I agree with you. The republicans haven't allowed the minimum wage to increase since the first part of this century. All increases since then were done at the state level.

As it should be.

 

[danielpalos]

Democrats regained the congressional House. Now they should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate issue.

I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.

It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.

Possible House’s negotiating positions:

The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.

The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.

I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.

Respectfully, Supposn

I agree with you. The republicans haven't allowed the minimum wage to increase since the first part of this century. All increases since then were done at the state level. The first to do it was the city of SeaTac. In Washington. They did it by ballot initiative. Then Seattle followed but politicians did it instead of the people by ballot initiative. The republicans all over the nation screamed bloody murder and predicted that Seattle and SeaTac would be destroyed. They weren't and many other states followed. By the way, Washington by state law has to have the highest state minimum wage in the nation. If any state increases their minimum wage above Washington, by law in Washington the minimum wage automatically increases a certain percentage above that other state's minimum wage.

The states that have higher wages are the more successful and prosperous states.

Increasing wages is so long over due. It will raise the standard of living for millions of workers in this nation. It will also increase tax revenue which is very much needed.

The type of automatic increases you described should be law so that workers will never go this long without an increase in pay and the wage gap won't get this lopsided.

Republicans scream they're capitalists but don't know one of the first rules of capitalism. Capitalism requires the free flow of money throughout the population to succeed. When you concentrate most of the money in very few hands, capitalism fails. Which results in what Russia now has. Oligarchy and monopolies. Capitalism will kill itself if proper regulations aren't established. A minimum wage is one of those proper regulations.

Only real losers have need concern themselves with the minimum wage. Only about 3% of the workforce is effected by it.

.

We need an upward pressure on wages on an Institutional basis not Individual basis. We also need to shed low wage jobs that don't cover the cost of social services; around fourteen dollars an hour.

God you're such a dipstick. The minimum wage was designed for people with no work experience to get a foothold in the workforce. It was never intended to be a living wage and should never be a living wage.

.

The Minimum wage is clearly labeled as such; only the Right Wing, has a problem with a Minimum wage.

 

[JWBooth]

The Minimum wage is clearly labeled as such; only the Right Wing, has a problem with a Minimum wage.

They tend to be the ones with an understanding of economics beyond third grade reasoning such as Krugman or Keynes.

 

[OKTexas]

Democrats regained the congressional House. Now they should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate issue.

I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.

It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.

Possible House’s negotiating positions:

The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.

The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.

I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.

Respectfully, Supposn

I agree with you. The republicans haven't allowed the minimum wage to increase since the first part of this century. All increases since then were done at the state level. The first to do it was the city of SeaTac. In Washington. They did it by ballot initiative. Then Seattle followed but politicians did it instead of the people by ballot initiative. The republicans all over the nation screamed bloody murder and predicted that Seattle and SeaTac would be destroyed. They weren't and many other states followed. By the way, Washington by state law has to have the highest state minimum wage in the nation. If any state increases their minimum wage above Washington, by law in Washington the minimum wage automatically increases a certain percentage above that other state's minimum wage.

The states that have higher wages are the more successful and prosperous states.

Increasing wages is so long over due. It will raise the standard of living for millions of workers in this nation. It will also increase tax revenue which is very much needed.

The type of automatic increases you described should be law so that workers will never go this long without an increase in pay and the wage gap won't get this lopsided.

Republicans scream they're capitalists but don't know one of the first rules of capitalism. Capitalism requires the free flow of money throughout the population to succeed. When you concentrate most of the money in very few hands, capitalism fails. Which results in what Russia now has. Oligarchy and monopolies. Capitalism will kill itself if proper regulations aren't established. A minimum wage is one of those proper regulations.

Only real losers have need concern themselves with the minimum wage. Only about 3% of the workforce is effected by it.

.

We need an upward pressure on wages on an Institutional basis not Individual basis. We also need to shed low wage jobs that don't cover the cost of social services; around fourteen dollars an hour.

God you're such a dipstick. The minimum wage was designed for people with no work experience to get a foothold in the workforce. It was never intended to be a living wage and should never be a living wage.

.

The Minimum wage is clearly labeled as such; only the Right Wing, has a problem with a Minimum wage.

It's an interference with private employment contracts, which is unconstitutional. But you commies have never been concerned with the Constitution.

.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Democrats regained the congressional House. Now they should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate issue.

I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.

It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.

Possible House’s negotiating positions:

The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.

The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.

I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.

Respectfully, Supposn

I agree with you. The republicans haven't allowed the minimum wage to increase since the first part of this century. All increases since then were done at the state level. The first to do it was the city of SeaTac. In Washington. They did it by ballot initiative. Then Seattle followed but politicians did it instead of the people by ballot initiative. The republicans all over the nation screamed bloody murder and predicted that Seattle and SeaTac would be destroyed. They weren't and many other states followed. By the way, Washington by state law has to have the highest state minimum wage in the nation. If any state increases their minimum wage above Washington, by law in Washington the minimum wage automatically increases a certain percentage above that other state's minimum wage.

The states that have higher wages are the more successful and prosperous states.

Increasing wages is so long over due. It will raise the standard of living for millions of workers in this nation. It will also increase tax revenue which is very much needed.

The type of automatic increases you described should be law so that workers will never go this long without an increase in pay and the wage gap won't get this lopsided.

Republicans scream they're capitalists but don't know one of the first rules of capitalism. Capitalism requires the free flow of money throughout the population to succeed. When you concentrate most of the money in very few hands, capitalism fails. Which results in what Russia now has. Oligarchy and monopolies. Capitalism will kill itself if proper regulations aren't established. A minimum wage is one of those proper regulations.

Capitalism is about market control--not government control.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If minimum wage laws are passed, they should be done on a city level, not a national one.

That was proposed here in Cleveland a few years back. They created a bill to increase MW to $15.00 per hour.

When it came to a vote, the all Democrat Council voted it down. Why? Because then companies would be seeking to move out of the city into the suburbs, as if that wasn't a problem already.

Their next big idea was to make it a county initiative. That didn't work for the same reason. Companies would just move out of our county into a neighboring county.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Democrats regained the congressional House. Now they should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate issue. ...

Great, more paper for Mitch's recycle bin. That's about as far as it would get.

OKTexas, no; it goes as far as to be an issue of great advantage to Democrats in 2020.
Respectfully, Supposn

I don't know how you figure that. When wages increase, so do prices of goods and services. Do you really think the average voter wants to pay more for services and products?

 

[danielpalos]

The Minimum wage is clearly labeled as such; only the Right Wing, has a problem with a Minimum wage.

They tend to be the ones with an understanding of economics beyond third grade reasoning such as Krugman or Keynes.

sure; get richer, even at the expense of the Poor.

 

[Avatar4321]

I agree that they should confront the federal minimum wage rate. They should abolish it completely and let States do their own thing.

They won't but they should

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Democrats regained the congressional House. Now they should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate issue.

I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.

It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.

Possible House’s negotiating positions:

The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.

The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.

I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.

Respectfully, Supposn

I don't know why the left thinks that when they increase costs on businesses, that's a good thing.

While outsourcing has taken millions of jobs from us, the larger culprit of job losses are machines.

As automation lowers in price and wages increase in price, it makes automation more of a reasonable investment. As pointed out, states have increased their wages. Now even McDonald's and Wendy's are using robots to do the chores of humans. It won't be long before a machine makes your Big Mac meal.

You can't increase wages on one particular group of people because what it really does is create a domino effect. If you make the new minimum wage $8.50 an hour, then those who were working for $8.50 an hour will want $9.25. Those who were working for $9.25 will want $10.00. And the list goes on and on.

So let's say that two roommates are working for minimum wage. After rent is paid, they have $400.00 to spend on other things like utilities, entertainment, food and so on. They get an increase in minimum wage thanks to the federal government. Now they have $700.00 to spend on other things. The problem is their wages went up with others who are working, so eventually, what they used to spend their $400.00 on, they now have to spend $700.00 on.

In other words, nothing accomplished.

 

[danielpalos]

I agree that they should confront the federal minimum wage rate. They should abolish it completely and let States do their own thing.

They won't but they should

why is that? we have a national economy and a federal government for the Union.

 

[Avatar4321]

I agree that they should confront the federal minimum wage rate. They should abolish it completely and let States do their own thing.

They won't but they should

why is that? we have a national economy and a federal government for the Union.

we have a different cost of living through out the nation. and we have a constitution that does give the federal government authority to standardize a national minimum

 

[Crepitus]

Apparently many of the Democrats' base still haven't gotten the message that they don't give a flying shit about this country or its workers; they work for Goldman Sachs and the 'globalist' labor racketeers. They've have never once made any serious efforts for American labor since the 1950's, and they despise blue collar workers no end, and tossed them out of the Party; they invented the 'super delegate rule' just for that reason, so time for you clueless parrots to grow up; they hate populism, and say so all the time. they had majorities several times since the 1970's, and never did squat when they had them, except bail out Wall Street and helping the U.S. Chamber of Commerce flood the country with criminal illegal aliens bankrupting the social safety net and letting foreign gangsters take over the ghettos and barrios. They prefer lunching with billionaires on their yachts.

Most of the 'left' and the hood rats are far more interested in shoveling boatloads of cash at drug cartels and smugglers, gangs of killers and scum, not 'reforms', so drop the bongs, sober up, learn to wear your pants up where they're supposed to be instead of copying fashions from prison faggots, because the Democrats aren't Santa Claus and the Party is far more concerned with stuffing its own pockets and could care less about yours.

Stupid post of the year, and the year is almost up.

 

[danielpalos]

Democrats regained the congressional House. Now they should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate issue.

I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.

It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.

Possible House’s negotiating positions:

The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.

The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.

I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.

Respectfully, Supposn

I don't know why the left thinks that when they increase costs on businesses, that's a good thing.

It is only a Good thing to the extent anyone working for the minimum wage, covers the cost of social services as an opportunity cost. There is no economic point to subsidizing Capitalists with Cheap labor in a First World economy.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective and convenient.

 

[danielpalos]

Democrats regained the congressional House. Now they should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate issue.

I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.

It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.

Possible House’s negotiating positions:

The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.

The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.

I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.

Respectfully, Supposn

While outsourcing has taken millions of jobs from us, the larger culprit of job losses are machines.

Why not jail Capitalists who leave for Cheap labor for "tax evasion due our First World Government and economy."

 

[Andylusion]

Democrats regained the congressional House. Now they should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate issue.

I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.

It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.

Possible House’s negotiating positions:

The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.

The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.

I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.

Respectfully, Supposn

If you drastically increase the minimum wage, you will cause a recession again. Guaranteed. Do you want to harm people?

 

[danielpalos]

Democrats regained the congressional House. Now they should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate issue.

I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.

It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.

Possible House’s negotiating positions:

The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.

The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.

I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.

Respectfully, Supposn

I don't know why the left thinks that when they increase costs on businesses, that's a good thing.

While outsourcing has taken millions of jobs from us, the larger culprit of job losses are machines.

As automation lowers in price and wages increase in price, it makes automation more of a reasonable investment. As pointed out, states have increased their wages. Now even McDonald's and Wendy's are using robots to do the chores of humans. It won't be long before a machine makes your Big Mac meal.

You can't increase wages on one particular group of people because what it really does is create a domino effect. If you make the new minimum wage $8.50 an hour, then those who were working for $8.50 an hour will want $9.25. Those who were working for $9.25 will want $10.00. And the list goes on and on.

So let's say that two roommates are working for minimum wage. After rent is paid, they have $400.00 to spend on other things like utilities, entertainment, food and so on. They get an increase in minimum wage thanks to the federal government. Now they have $700.00 to spend on other things. The problem is their wages went up with others who are working, so eventually, what they used to spend their $400.00 on, they now have to spend $700.00 on.

In other words, nothing accomplished.

The alternative is more expensive, means tested welfare.