Democrats should immediately confront the minimum wage rate.

[The Original Tree]

Why not let people do their own thing? If I could do a job someone needs done for $5.50 an hour, why not allow me to bid the job at that rate?

Actually, when the federal minimum wage law was established in 1938, it was set at 25 cents an hour which is equivalent to $3.50 in todays dollars. So if people want to keep pace with the minimum wage, we need to lower it by several dollars.

Exactly. You can always tell when people are making an ideological point, because they pick a year like 1976 or some crazy year, when inflation was double digits, and for a few weeks, the minimum wage was high.

Just like they do to promote global warming.

Only a Libtard DemNazi in Hollywood would constantly cry about Global Warming and then build their MANSIONS in Ecologically Sensitive areas, refuse to manage their forests, and then Blame everyone else when Mother Nature Punishes them for building their homes in a Semi Arid sub desert forest.

It's like Al Gore complaining about the combustion engine while riding around in a Caravan of Bullet proof Escalades or flying in his Fuel Guzzling Jet, or burning up more energy in his Mansion in a day than most Americans use in a month.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wrong. For every dollar you raise the minimum wage, the cost of making a hamburger goes up 10 cents. A $3 an hour raise for fast food workers would raise fast food costs by 30 cents. I'd pay 30 cents more for a hamburger if that meant that McDonald's paid their workers a living wage.

That's correct, because McDonald's sells 500 big macs a day, 300 hamburgers a day, 400 breakfast items a day, 2000 drinks a day. The cost can be divided up with barely a notice. But Sam's Hardware store doesn't sell 500 hammers a day, 300 levels a day, or 20 lawnmowers a day. Bob's Butcher shop doesn't sell 400 chickens a day, 600 pork chops a day, or 200 steaks a day.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Democrats should all immediately self immolate. The minimum wage is for kids and retirees and people just starting out. If I can make 20 dollars an hour as a door greeter at walmart, what incentive to I have to be more? lol liberals all blow.

WTF? Who is proposing $20 minimum wage?

There are a few groups who have said $15/hour isn't enough.

Because as the minimum wage rises, so does the cost of living. Remember, no one was suggesting $15/hour, when the minimum wage was $5.25. It was after Bush raised it up to $7.25, that $15/hour became the new target. Why? Because the cost of everything went up, so the target went up too. And when we raise the minimum wage to $10/hr, they'll raise the target.

It doesn't really matter what the minimum wage is. Whatever they raise the minimum wage too, it will be the new standard of poor, and they will want to raise it higher.

I'll repeat the question - who is advocating $20 minimum wage?

Answer is NO ONE and the argument made was just a strawman.

And for clearity - we ought to always discuss economics in REAL terms. So when someone says $20, that means $20 worth in year 2018.

For example in the 1960s minimum wage peaked at just over $10 in REAL terms, which is $3 dollars more than today's minimum wage. So there is little reason to not have $10 minimum wage today.

Perhaps I had one too many beers, but what do you mean minimum wage peaked at $10.00 an hour? I worked for minimum wage in the 70's for three something an hour.

In 1976 minimum wage was $2, which had about the same purchasing power as $9-$10 today.

In 1976 we didn't have 40 million Illegal rapist Mexicans or 100 million women working.


.

 

[danielpalos]

Wrong. For every dollar you raise the minimum wage, the cost of making a hamburger goes up 10 cents. A $3 an hour raise for fast food workers would raise fast food costs by 30 cents. I'd pay 30 cents more for a hamburger if that meant that McDonald's paid their workers a living wage.

That's correct, because McDonald's sells 500 big macs a day, 300 hamburgers a day, 400 breakfast items a day, 2000 drinks a day. The cost can be divided up with barely a notice. But Sam's Hardware store doesn't sell 500 hammers a day, 300 levels a day, or 20 lawnmowers a day. Bob's Butcher shop doesn't sell 400 chickens a day, 600 pork chops a day, or 200 steaks a day.

why rely on cheap labor at all, in those cases?

 

[Natural Citizen]

No. End the Federal Reserve. Go back to free markets where the market tells the government what to do instead of what we have now where the government tells the market what to do.

Thats how you get purchasing power back.

If somebody tells you no, free-markets won't work, tell em better liberty with the challenge and dangers of the untried, unknown, than servitude's deadly certainty of economic security. I lifted that line from a great book on the topic. Author nailed it.

 

[danielpalos]

No. End the Federal Reserve. Go back to free markets where the market tells the government what to do instead of what we have now where the government tells the market what to do.

Thats how you get purchasing power back.

If somebody tells you no, free-markets won't work, tell em better liberty with the challenge and dangers of the untried, unknown, than servitude's deadly certainty of economic security. I lifted that line from a great book on the topic. Author nailed it.

it doesn't work.

why not solve simple poverty and rely on that for automatic stabilization?

 

[AntonToo]

WTF? Who is proposing $20 minimum wage?

There are a few groups who have said $15/hour isn't enough.

Because as the minimum wage rises, so does the cost of living. Remember, no one was suggesting $15/hour, when the minimum wage was $5.25. It was after Bush raised it up to $7.25, that $15/hour became the new target. Why? Because the cost of everything went up, so the target went up too. And when we raise the minimum wage to $10/hr, they'll raise the target.

It doesn't really matter what the minimum wage is. Whatever they raise the minimum wage too, it will be the new standard of poor, and they will want to raise it higher.

I'll repeat the question - who is advocating $20 minimum wage?

Answer is NO ONE and the argument made was just a strawman.

And for clearity - we ought to always discuss economics in REAL terms. So when someone says $20, that means $20 worth in year 2018.

For example in the 1960s minimum wage peaked at just over $10 in REAL terms, which is $3 dollars more than today's minimum wage. So there is little reason to not have $10 minimum wage today.

Perhaps I had one too many beers, but what do you mean minimum wage peaked at $10.00 an hour? I worked for minimum wage in the 70's for three something an hour.

In 1976 minimum wage was $2, which had about the same purchasing power as $9-$10 today.

In 1976 we didn't have 40 million Illegal rapist Mexicans or 100 million women working.
.

Hey moron, we still don't.

And what the hell does women working have to do with this?

 

[AntonToo]

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 not let people do their own thing? If I could do a job someone needs done for $5.50 an hour, why not allow me to bid the job at that rate?

.

Because individuals at that level of income have little leverage and are willing to work for what enough people see as unfair compensation.

For example, I would consider working at fast food joint HARDER work than my own, even though it pays only a fraction of what I make. Minimum wage helps to even out a bit common compensaiton disparity like that.

Your employer does not pay you by how hard you work. Your employer pays you based on your skill and how much money you make for the company.

Your wages are determined by how much your employer can get somebody else to do the same job at the same quality of work that you do.

For instance you take a job as a fast food worker. You are doing a job that requires minutes of training which means anybody can do it. You may be working your ass off, but your employer can find dozens of people to do the same thing.

Not so if you're an engineer or a registered nurse. That requires years of training and even more years of experience. You can't find dozens of engineers or ten registered nurses on your street. Because of that, you are worth more money to your employer.

And? The point is minimum wage laws step in where pure market creates a desparity too great.

Minimum wages laws don't solve that problem. If they did, then 2009 should have been a utopia.

Total fact and logic fail.

Fact: Minimum wage was nationally most generous in REAL terms in 1960s and it's been shrinking ever since.

Logic: Just because a policy reduces economic disparieties does not mean it fully solves them or creates a utopia.

Nor do we even want them to be fully solved because while we want to moderate some of the excesses of free markets, fundamentally supply and demand dynamics are still the main drive of our quite successful economy.

 

[Maxdeath]

... 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?

Ray From Cleveland, the U.S. federal minimum wage rate is not among the primary causes of U.S. dollar’s reduced purchasing power. The minimum rate is much less a cause, and much more a victim of our currency inflation.

Our federal government through our congress and our president cannot compel individual states to increase their minimum rate beyond the federal minimum rate, but they can set the federal minimum higher for the purpose of preventing states within which employees' purchasing powers are the lowest, from continuing to undermine their own and the remainder of our nation’s employees and their families living standards.

A majority of USA’s voters favor increasing the federal minimum wage rate and thereafter retaining its purchasing power. A majority of USA voters did not prefer Donald Trump.

Respectfully, Supposn

In other words, the majority want to vote themselves a pay raise. Too bad that it will not increase their purchasing power because it is a dog chasing its tail.

Wrong. For every dollar you raise the minimum wage, the cost of making a hamburger goes up 10 cents. A $3 an hour raise for fast food workers would raise fast food costs by 30 cents. I'd pay 30 cents more for a hamburger if that meant that McDonald's paid their workers a living wage.

You fail to make a connection. If a burger flipper makes $3.00 an hour more why should a carpenter not make $3.00 an hour more? Should someone working harder or smarter see their wage stay the same? I doubt they would gladly say sure I don't need extra.

They are going to want more because they will see someone else making more. They will look at the new prices and want their buying power to remain the same. It will not be limited to only burger flippers.

 

[Andylusion]

Why not let people do their own thing? If I could do a job someone needs done for $5.50 an hour, why not allow me to bid the job at that rate?

.

Because individuals at that level of income have little leverage and are willing to work for what enough people see as unfair compensation.

For example, I would consider working at fast food joint HARDER work than my own, even though it pays only a fraction of what I make. Minimum wage helps to even out a bit common compensaiton disparity like that.

Your employer does not pay you by how hard you work. Your employer pays you based on your skill and how much money you make for the company.

Your wages are determined by how much your employer can get somebody else to do the same job at the same quality of work that you do.

For instance you take a job as a fast food worker. You are doing a job that requires minutes of training which means anybody can do it. You may be working your ass off, but your employer can find dozens of people to do the same thing.

Not so if you're an engineer or a registered nurse. That requires years of training and even more years of experience. You can't find dozens of engineers or ten registered nurses on your street. Because of that, you are worth more money to your employer.

And? The point is minimum wage laws step in where pure market creates a desparity too great.

Minimum wages laws don't solve that problem. If they did, then 2009 should have been a utopia.

Total fact and logic fail.

Fact: Minimum wage was nationally most generous in REAL terms in 1960s and it's been shrinking ever since.

Logic: Just because a policy reduces economic disparieties does not mean it fully solves them or creates a utopia.

Nor do we even want them to be fully solved because while we want to moderate some of the excesses of free markets, fundamentally supply and demand dynamics are still the main drive of our quite successful economy.

First off, you can never call the minimum wage "generous".
There is nothing "generous" about the minimum wage. Me.... demanding YOU the consumer, pay Bob more money.... is not Generous of me.

Second, there is not one single example in all human history, where the increasing the minimum wage did NOT cause unemployment. There is nothing 'generous' about putting people out of work.

Third, there is nothing about the minimum wage that reduces income disparities, because the minimum wage, regardless of what the law says, is always zero.

Not a single person came on after the minimum wage hike of 1996, or the minimum wage hike of 2007-2009, and said "Look disparities have decreased!"

My point is, the minimum wage does nothing that you claim it does. It does not 'moderate some excesses', nor does it reduce disparity, nor is it 'generous'. There isn't a single aspect of the minimum wage that is good, and plenty that are bad.

 

[Andylusion]

No. End the Federal Reserve. Go back to free markets where the market tells the government what to do instead of what we have now where the government tells the market what to do.

Thats how you get purchasing power back.

If somebody tells you no, free-markets won't work, tell em better liberty with the challenge and dangers of the untried, unknown, than servitude's deadly certainty of economic security. I lifted that line from a great book on the topic. Author nailed it.

Yeah, getting rid of the Fed isn't going to happen. Not a possibility.

At some point we need to rationally accept that while it is true that we should not have had a Federal Reserve to begin with, that the fact is that our system is now completely interconnected to the Federal Reserve. Eliminating the Fed now, would result in the US ceasing to be a world power. That's how bad the economic devastation would be.

This is not going to happen.

That said, we need to stop a belief that deflation is bad. For some reason there is a pervasive view in the banking sector, that inflation is good (within reason) and deflation is bad. This is entirely false, and utterly unsupportable by evidence.

 

[danielpalos]

only lousy capitalists lose money on public policies. that is the right wing reality we need to face.

 

[williepete]

You get paid what you're worth. Period.

Getting paid minimum wage? If you're not a kid still living at home, a retiree or mentally handicapped, that says a lot about the choices you've made in life.

Raising the minimum wage won't unscrew what you've done with your life.

 

[danielpalos]

You get paid what you're worth. Period.

Getting paid minimum wage? If you're not a kid still living at home, a retiree or mentally handicapped, that says a lot about the choices you've made in life.

Raising the minimum wage won't unscrew what you've done with your life.

It has to do with economics, not moral value judgments.

 

[williepete]

It has to do with economics, not moral value judgments.

Agree 100%. You're paid what you're worth.

 

[danielpalos]

It has to do with economics, not moral value judgments.

Agree 100%. You're paid what you're worth.

not with your moral values.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

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

.

Why do you hate your fellow working Americans?

How many years should it remain at the same rate?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You get paid what you're worth. Period.

Getting paid minimum wage? If you're not a kid still living at home, a retiree or mentally handicapped, that says a lot about the choices you've made in life.

Raising the minimum wage won't unscrew what you've done with your life.

So, MW ought to be a punishment for poor choices then?

 

[AntonToo]

Because individuals at that level of income have little leverage and are willing to work for what enough people see as unfair compensation.

For example, I would consider working at fast food joint HARDER work than my own, even though it pays only a fraction of what I make. Minimum wage helps to even out a bit common compensaiton disparity like that.

Your employer does not pay you by how hard you work. Your employer pays you based on your skill and how much money you make for the company.

Your wages are determined by how much your employer can get somebody else to do the same job at the same quality of work that you do.

For instance you take a job as a fast food worker. You are doing a job that requires minutes of training which means anybody can do it. You may be working your ass off, but your employer can find dozens of people to do the same thing.

Not so if you're an engineer or a registered nurse. That requires years of training and even more years of experience. You can't find dozens of engineers or ten registered nurses on your street. Because of that, you are worth more money to your employer.

And? The point is minimum wage laws step in where pure market creates a desparity too great.

Minimum wages laws don't solve that problem. If they did, then 2009 should have been a utopia.

Total fact and logic fail.

Fact: Minimum wage was nationally most generous in REAL terms in 1960s and it's been shrinking ever since.

Logic: Just because a policy reduces economic disparieties does not mean it fully solves them or creates a utopia.

Nor do we even want them to be fully solved because while we want to moderate some of the excesses of free markets, fundamentally supply and demand dynamics are still the main drive of our quite successful economy.

First off, you can never call the minimum wage "generous".

Wtf? All I meant by generous was that it was higher.

 

[AntonToo]

Because individuals at that level of income have little leverage and are willing to work for what enough people see as unfair compensation.

For example, I would consider working at fast food joint HARDER work than my own, even though it pays only a fraction of what I make. Minimum wage helps to even out a bit common compensaiton disparity like that.

Your employer does not pay you by how hard you work. Your employer pays you based on your skill and how much money you make for the company.

Your wages are determined by how much your employer can get somebody else to do the same job at the same quality of work that you do.

For instance you take a job as a fast food worker. You are doing a job that requires minutes of training which means anybody can do it. You may be working your ass off, but your employer can find dozens of people to do the same thing.

Not so if you're an engineer or a registered nurse. That requires years of training and even more years of experience. You can't find dozens of engineers or ten registered nurses on your street. Because of that, you are worth more money to your employer.

And? The point is minimum wage laws step in where pure market creates a desparity too great.

Minimum wages laws don't solve that problem. If they did, then 2009 should have been a utopia.

Total fact and logic fail.

Fact: Minimum wage was nationally most generous in REAL terms in 1960s and it's been shrinking ever since.

Logic: Just because a policy reduces economic disparieties does not mean it fully solves them or creates a utopia.

Nor do we even want them to be fully solved because while we want to moderate some of the excesses of free markets, fundamentally supply and demand dynamics are still the main drive of our quite successful economy.

Second, there is not one single example in all human history, where the increasing the minimum wage did NOT cause unemployment. There is nothing 'generous' about putting people out of work.

Third, there is nothing about the minimum wage that reduces income disparities, because the minimum wage, regardless of what the law says, is always zero.

Not a single person came on after the minimum wage hike of 1996, or the minimum wage hike of 2007-2009, and said "Look disparities have decreased!"

My point is, the minimum wage does nothing that you claim it does. It does not 'moderate some excesses', nor does it reduce disparity, nor is it 'generous'. There isn't a single aspect of the minimum wage that is good, and plenty that are bad.

When minimum wage goes up salaries for people at around that income level go up (REAL-ly), even when accounting for some slight job contraction and inflationary effects.

Thats what common sense tells us and it just so happens to coincide with what mainstream economists find as well.

Put down the crack pipe and read up:

The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income | Congressional Budget Office