Minimum wage rate and labors’ market prices.

[Oddball]

The minimum wage should be zero , I was just reading an article no where in the USA can a person afford a one bedroom apartment on minimum wage..so the $12 dollar minimum wage in Seattle is useless.

The minimum wage should be higher than the cost of social services, around fourteen dollars an hour. It is a reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage. If the minimum wage had kept up with inflation it would be eighteen dollars an hour, according some literature I have read.

The following is a deliberate run on sentence. It is so to make a point. If you want to understand the point, read it in it's entirety.
Socialists just don't get it....capitalism that is. The concept of a minimum wage creates a vicious circle. You raise the minimum wage so everyone will have a "living wage" today and can afford basic expenses like housing and food on their own and before you know it more people can afford their own apartment, causing a demand for apartments and a supply shortage driving the rents up as more people compete for the available apartments and the rents become unaffordable again and those employers who have to pay that higher wage have to raise their prices on the food and clothing they sell and once again the recipients of the higher minimum wage can no longer afford to live so you have to raise the minimum wage and once again everyone can afford basic expenses like housing and food on their own and before you know it more people can afford their own apartment, causing a demand for apartments and a supply shortage driving the rents up as more people compete for the available apartments and the rents become unaffordable again and those employers who have to pay that higher wage have to raise their prices on the food and clothing they sell and once again the recipients of the higher minimum wage can no longer afford to live so you have to raise the minimum wage and once again everyone can afford basic expenses like housing and food on their own and before you know it more people can afford their own apartment, causing a demand for apartments and a supply shortage driving the rents up as more people compete for the available apartments and the rents become unaffordable again and those employers who have to pay that higher wage have to raise their prices on the food and clothing they sell and once again the recipients of the higher minimum wage can no longer afford to live so you have to raise the minimum wage and once again everyone can afford basic expenses like housing and food on their own and before you know it more people can afford their own apartment, causing a demand for apartments and a supply shortage driving the rents up as more people compete for the available apartments and the rents become unaffordable again and those employers who have to pay that wage have to raise their prices on the food and clothing they sell and once again the recipients of the higher minimum wage can no longer afford to live so you have to raise the minimum wage and once again everyone can afford basic expenses like housing and food on their own and before you know it more people can afford their own apartment, causing a demand for apartments and a supply shortage driving the rents up as more people compete for the available apartments and the rents become unaffordable again and those employers who have to pay that higher wage have to raise their prices on the food and clothing they sell and once again the recipients of the higher minimum wage can no longer afford to live so you have to raise the minimum wage and once again everyone can afford basic expenses like housing and food on their own and before you know it more people can afford their own apartment, causing a demand for apartments and a supply shortage driving the rents up as more people compete for the available apartments and the rents become unaffordable again and those employers who have to pay that higher wage have to raise their prices on the food and clothing they sell and once again the recipients of the higher minimum wage can no longer afford to live so you have to raise the minimum wage and once again everyone can afford basic expenses like housing and food on their own and before you know it more people can afford their own apartment, causing a demand for apartments and a supply shortage driving the rents up as more people compete for the available apartments and the rents become unaffordable again and those employers who have to pay that wage have to raise their prices on the food and clothing they sell and once again the recipients of the higher minimum wage can no longer afford to live so you have to raise the minimum wage and once again everyone can afford basic expenses like housing and food on their own and before you .......

Did I make my point? Capitalism is self balancing. Supply and demand. If there is a job to be done, and someone willing to do it, and the compensation is acceptable to that someone, then the position gets filled, the job gets done and that someone gets paid. If there is a job to do, and there is someone willing to do it but not for the compensation being offered, then it doesn't get done UNLESS the the compensation is raised, not by mandate of the government but because of supply and demand. If you artificially raise wages by mandate and not through supply and demand, the EVERYTHING that wage is used to pay for will also rise in cost, making that artificially high wage no longer as valuable relative to cost. In essense you create artificial and perpetual inflation, further widening the income gap.

He doesn't give a fuck....He's an economic illiterate on purpose.

 

[Supposn]

Regardless of all of this....Where is written the feds' power to centrally control the prices of anything, let alone labor?

Oddball, governments’ laws prohibit employers from paying less than the legally applicable wage rate, but the minimum rate doesn’t determine wage differentials. Thus, our government doesn’t control wage prices. There are some fools that believe otherwise. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

... You're confused about your own source, again!
View attachment 398030
... Did you have a real source for the CBO saying the $600 (or smaller) increase was "critical" or "substantial"? Or did you make up that claim?

ToddsterPatriot, we often read or hear meanings of messages that have not actually been written or spoken as we have “sensed” them to be. You’re so invested to what you wish to believe the Congressional Budget office is publishing, you cannot acknowledge your error even when it’s brought to your attention.

I don’t believe I’ve ever stated $600 (or smaller) increase of families’ annual incomes were, or were not "critical" or "substantial" to them?
I did state that the federal minimum wage rate affects upon employees’ rates within the lowest bracket of wage rates range from critical to substantial. It is critical for those employees earning the lowest rates, and less critical but substantial for those earning higher rates within the low-rate bracket of wage rates.

“Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion” while “real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion” is a net increase of the nation’s wages.

"We all do better when we all do better" Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... You're confused about your own source, again!
View attachment 398030
... Did you have a real source for the CBO saying the $600 (or smaller) increase was "critical" or "substantial"? Or did you make up that claim?

ToddsterPatriot, we often read or hear meanings of messages that have not actually been written or spoken as we have “sensed” them to be. You’re so invested to what you wish to believe the Congressional Budget office is publishing, you cannot acknowledge your error even when it’s brought to your attention.

I don’t believe I’ve ever stated $600 (or smaller) increase of families’ annual incomes were, or were not "critical" or "substantial" to them?
I did state that the federal minimum wage rate affects upon employees’ rates within the lowest bracket of wage rates range from critical to substantial. It is critical for those employees earning the lowest rates, and less critical but substantial for those earning higher rates within the low-rate bracket of wage rates.

“Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion” while “real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion” is a net increase of the nation’s wages.

"We all do better when we all do better" Respectfully, Supposn

I did state that the federal minimum wage rate affects upon employees’ rates within the lowest bracket of wage rates range from critical to substantial.

Where did the CBO say the affect of the minimum wage was critical? Link?

“Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion” while “real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion” is a net increase of the nation’s wages.

It is amusing that your claim disagrees with your own source.
Did you even read it?

 

[Oddball]

Regardless of all of this....Where is written the feds' power to centrally control the prices of anything, let alone labor?

Oddball, governments’ laws prohibit employers from paying less than the legally applicable wage rate, but the minimum rate doesn’t determine wage differentials. Thus, our government doesn’t control wage prices. There are some fools that believe otherwise. Respectfully, Supposn

What a truly foolhardy and borderline ignorant thing to say...The differential is entirely irrelevant to the fact that the floor price is being set by central planners.

 

[Supposn]

Oddball, governments’ laws prohibit employers from paying less than the legally applicable wage rate, but the minimum rate doesn’t determine wage differentials. Thus, our government doesn’t control wage prices. There are some fools that believe otherwise. Respectfully, Supposn

What a truly foolhardy and borderline ignorant thing to say...The differential is entirely irrelevant to the fact that the floor price is being set by central planners.

Oddball, you’re apparently unaware of the “Raise the Wage Acts text as it was passed by the Congressional House. After the rate was to reach its $15 per hour target, the minimum rate was to be annually monitored and pegged to changes of USA’s median wage rate: (i.e the minimum rate was to be modified and adjusted by civil service statisticians rather than congressional politicians).

Even if you believed that, (due to the tones of your posts to this group, I don’t suppose you believe it), I wouldn’t additionally suppose that would precipitate your changing any of your opinions. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Oddball]

Oddball, governments’ laws prohibit employers from paying less than the legally applicable wage rate, but the minimum rate doesn’t determine wage differentials. Thus, our government doesn’t control wage prices. There are some fools that believe otherwise. Respectfully, Supposn

What a truly foolhardy and borderline ignorant thing to say...The differential is entirely irrelevant to the fact that the floor price is being set by central planners.

Oddball, you’re apparently unaware of the “Raise the Wage Acts text as it was passed by the Congressional House. After the rate was to reach its $15 per hour target, the minimum rate was to be annually monitored and pegged to changes of USA’s median wage rate: (i.e the minimum rate was to be modified and adjusted by civil service statisticians rather than congressional politicians).

Even if you believed that, (due to the tones of your posts to this group, I don’t suppose you believe it), I wouldn’t additionally suppose that would precipitate your changing any of your opinions. Respectfully, Supposn

Legislation is not constitutional authorization....From that standpoint, there is absolutely no role for the feds to be controlling/setting the prices for anything, let alone labor.

And you started the "tone" by the implication that I am a fool to believe that the price for labor is in fact being set by central planners.....Your "respectfully" business notwithstanding.

 

[Supposn]

ToddsterPatriot, I did state that the federal minimum wage rate affects upon employees’ rates within the lowest bracket of wage rates range from critical to substantial.
You previously questioned that statement and my additionally stating the elimination of our FMW rate laws would be greatly detrimental to our nation’s net social and economic well-being. In response to your more current similar question, “Where did the CBO say the affect of the minimum wage was critical? Link?”. My previous response will continue to serve as the answer to these somewhat similar questions.

.... ToddsterPatriot, ... but there are many statements within my posts that are based upon the Congressional Budget office’s opinions and expectations.

Mention 32 % of USA’s employees being within the low-wage bracket of wage rates, is found 2025 “Projected Shares of Low-Wage Workers” table on page 10
of https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf .

The concepts of the minimum wage rate being of more support to lower, and of less support to higher wage rates are derived from “Effects of Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage on Average Annual Real Family Income, 2025” table on page 15 of the same publication.

We encounter similar such mentions throughout CBO’s publications and reports regarding the federal minimum wage rate. These mentions are in regard federal minimum wage rate increases or lack of increasing the minimum rate. What you advocate, repealing all to USA minimum wage rates would have more dire economic and social consequences upon our national well-being. ...

I am not amused by your pretense of not understanding the English language, and/or your ignoring my answers to your questions. I understand that my answers displease you, but I will not modify them to better conform to your opinions.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Legislation is not constitutional authorization....From that standpoint, there is absolutely no role for the feds to be controlling/setting the prices for anything, let alone labor. ...

Oddball, until the U.S. Supreme Court reverses their opinions in these matters or the federal minimum wage rate laws are repealed, those sharing your opinion of the federal minimum wage rate have few other options. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ToddsterPatriot, I did state that the federal minimum wage rate affects upon employees’ rates within the lowest bracket of wage rates range from critical to substantial.
You previously questioned that statement and my additionally stating the elimination of our FMW rate laws would be greatly detrimental to our nation’s net social and economic well-being. In response to your more current similar question, “Where did the CBO say the affect of the minimum wage was critical? Link?”. My previous response will continue to serve as the answer to these somewhat similar questions.

.... ToddsterPatriot, ... but there are many statements within my posts that are based upon the Congressional Budget office’s opinions and expectations.

Mention 32 % of USA’s employees being within the low-wage bracket of wage rates, is found 2025 “Projected Shares of Low-Wage Workers” table on page 10
of https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf .

The concepts of the minimum wage rate being of more support to lower, and of less support to higher wage rates are derived from “Effects of Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage on Average Annual Real Family Income, 2025” table on page 15 of the same publication.

We encounter similar such mentions throughout CBO’s publications and reports regarding the federal minimum wage rate. These mentions are in regard federal minimum wage rate increases or lack of increasing the minimum rate. What you advocate, repealing all to USA minimum wage rates would have more dire economic and social consequences upon our national well-being. ...

I am not amused by your pretense of not understanding the English language, and/or your ignoring my answers to your questions. I understand that my answers displease you, but I will not modify them to better conform to your opinions.
Respectfully, Supposn

I did state that the federal minimum wage rate affects upon employees’ rates within the lowest bracket of wage rates range from critical to substantial.

You state many things while providing no evidence and no backup.
So this was your claim, not the CBO's? Thanks. I should have known.

You previously questioned that statement and my additionally stating the elimination of our FMW rate laws would be greatly detrimental to our nation’s net social and economic well-being.

Yes I did. And for years, you've failed to prove your claim.

I understand that my answers displease you,

You're mistaken, again.
Your errors don't displease me, they amuse me.

“Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion” while “real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion” is a net increase of the nation’s wages.

Bottom of page 2

Bottom of page 14

That's your own source saying a $9 billion net decrease of income. Twice!
The opposite of your claim.

 

[Supposn]

Toddsterpatriot,
Referring to page 2 of https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf

• “On the basis of those effects and CBO’s estimate of the median effect on employment, the $15 option would reduce total real (inflation-adjusted) family income in 2025 by $9 billion, or 0.1 percent.”; [i.e. one tenth of a percent].
• figure 1 projects median estimated loss of jobs exceeding 1%, increases of family incomes for families incomes below 3 times the poverty threshold. Fig 1 doesn’t indicate any income losses for families with incomes between 3 times and less than 6 times families’ poverty thresholds, (but within other CBO publications an indicated loss of one tenth of a percent for this same group is mentioned).
• Fig 1 indicates losses of incomes for families with incomes of 6 times or greater than families poverty thresholds.

[There’s no appreciable percentages of income losses due to the minimum wage rate, from any other than this third, highest income group of families. Incidences and extents of non-wage derived income items such as capital gains, dividends, or profits are, (as a percentage of families’ incomes) greater for higher, rather than lower income families. Due to increases of minimum wage rate, lower income families incomes are increased rather than reduced, I would suppose the mentioned $9 billion losses of family incomes must be primarily attributable to families with incomes 6 or more times greater than family poverty thresholds and are much more attributable to the more higher rather than the lesser income families within that group].

To the extent of its purchasing power, the federal minimum wage rate reduces incidences and extents of poverty among USA’s working-poor.
“We all do better when we all do better”. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddsterpatriot,
Referring to page 2 of https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf

• “On the basis of those effects and CBO’s estimate of the median effect on employment, the $15 option would reduce total real (inflation-adjusted) family income in 2025 by $9 billion, or 0.1 percent.”; [i.e. one tenth of a percent].
• figure 1 projects median estimated loss of jobs exceeding 1%, increases of family incomes for families incomes below 3 times the poverty threshold. Fig 1 doesn’t indicate any income losses for families with incomes between 3 times and less than 6 times families’ poverty thresholds, (but within other CBO publications an indicated loss of one tenth of a percent for this same group is mentioned).
• Fig 1 indicates losses of incomes for families with incomes of 6 times or greater than families poverty thresholds.

[There’s no appreciable percentages of income losses due to the minimum wage rate, from any other than this third, highest income group of families. Incidences and extents of non-wage derived income items such as capital gains, dividends, or profits are, (as a percentage of families’ incomes) greater for higher, rather than lower income families. Due to increases of minimum wage rate, lower income families incomes are increased rather than reduced, I would suppose the mentioned $9 billion losses of family incomes must be primarily attributable to families with incomes 6 or more times greater than family poverty thresholds and are much more attributable to the more higher rather than the lesser income families within that group].

To the extent of its purchasing power, the federal minimum wage rate reduces incidences and extents of poverty among USA’s working-poor.
“We all do better when we all do better”. Respectfully, Supposn

Due to increases of minimum wage rate, lower income families incomes are increased rather than reduced,

Except for families with a member laid off because of the higher minimum.
And families with a member never hired because of the higher minimum.

I would suppose the mentioned $9 billion losses of family incomes must be primarily attributable to families with incomes 6 or more times greater than family poverty thresholds

And business owners of all income levels. And consumers of all income levels.

I know you hate it when I use your own sources to refute your claims.
That's reality.

 

[Supposn]

ToddsterPatriot, it’s not unusual for employers to be opposed the minimum wage rate and those same employers often share the opinion that there low wage rate employees are not worthy of the rates they’re being paid.

Employers are not legally required to hire anyone. Their business decisions are generally not altruistically motivated. Regardless if they do or do not fully and truly acknowledge their motives, their decisions to hire or retain an employee or to pay no less than the applicable minimum wage rate, is due to their realization that behaving otherwise would likely be net detrimental to their own and/or their enterprises’ best interests.

Every nations’ governments that’s effectively able to enforce their laws, have some provisions similar to USA’s minimum wage rate laws. Those provisions are their governments’ and/or their quasi-government organizations that enforce something to accomplish the purpose of USA’s minimum rate laws. Those nation’s governments’, (including our federal government’s) decisions to do so were motivated by their legislators’ determinations that those laws are to the best interests of their nations’ economic and social well-being.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ToddsterPatriot, it’s not unusual for employers to be opposed the minimum wage rate and those same employers often share the opinion that there low wage rate employees are not worthy of the rates they’re being paid.

Employers are not legally required to hire anyone. Their business decisions are generally not altruistically motivated. Regardless if they do or do not fully and truly acknowledge their motives, their decisions to hire or retain an employee or to pay no less than the applicable minimum wage rate, is due to their realization that behaving otherwise would likely be net detrimental to their own and/or their enterprises’ best interests.

Every nations’ governments that’s effectively able to enforce their laws, have some provisions similar to USA’s minimum wage rate laws. Those provisions are their governments’ and/or their quasi-government organizations that enforce something to accomplish the purpose of USA’s minimum rate laws. Those nation’s governments’, (including our federal government’s) decisions to do so were motivated by their legislators’ determinations that those laws are to the best interests of their nations’ economic and social well-being.

Respectfully, Supposn

Employers are not legally required to hire anyone. Their business decisions are generally not altruistically motivated.

Why would they be?

Regardless if they do or do not fully and truly acknowledge their motives, their decisions to hire or retain an employee or to pay no less than the applicable minimum wage rate, is due to their realization that behaving otherwise would likely be net detrimental to their own and/or their enterprises’ best interests.

That's probably why over 98% of hourly workers are paid more than the minimum wage.

So, are we done talking about your refuted claims?

 

[danielpalos]

The minimum wage should be zero ...

If it's going to be applied consistently, it has to be. Unless we're going to ban volunteers and interns.

They are already being applied consistently. Nice try.

There are no general regulations that permit volunteering of services to an employer in the private sector. All hours worked must be paid. According to the FLSA, an employer must pay all employees not less than the minimum wage for all hours worked.

Generally, the intern should be paid at least minimum wage as well as overtime. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recognizes very narrow exceptions to the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for private-sector internships in for-profit organizations.Feb 26, 2020

Welcome to SHRM | The Voice of All Things Work

For all things work, turn to SHRM, the world’s largest HR association dedicated to creating better workplaces that work for all.

www.shrm.org

Well, there you go. Volunteering is illegal. Gotta love socialism.

Only on a for-profit basis; gotta love Capital morality for it.

 

[danielpalos]

Minimum wage rate and labors’ market prices.
Products “Market prices” are affecting by various factors. Enforcement of government laws affecting regarding trade or contracts regarding a product, is often such a price affecting factor. Those using the term ‘market rates” applicable to a legally enforced minimum wage rate within a marketplace, are referring to a theoretical, indefinite, (i.e. not actually existing) price that excludes governments’ minimum wage laws as not existing.

Regardless of some persons preferences, governments’ minimum wage laws are existing factors applicable within marketplaces. ...

Because we don't like our money to be stolen and given to the lazy?

HereWeGoAgain, minimum wage rates affects upon lower wage rates range from critical upon the very lowest, to substantial upon higher rates within the lowest wage rate bracket. The Congressional Budget Office considered all rates below $20 per hour as being within the lower wage bracket.
Lower wage rate employees are not "given", they earn their wages. Respectfully, Supposn

Sorry,but a dude flipping burgers or running the fryolator dont deserve 20 bucks an hour.
Especially when you consider many people had to go to school to make 20 bucks and hour.
So what about those people? Raise their pay to 75 bucks an hour?

The minimum wage would be around eighteen dollars an hour if it had kept up with inflation. Where is your right wing plan for wages to meet or beat inflation on an Institutional basis?

Minimum wage causes inflation

Less than five percent inflation; and, in many cases not enough inflation to necessitate a raise in prices since higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue.

 

[danielpalos]

As I assume you are aware, we support a "free-market", which means not having controls on what voluntary exchanges people engage in, which would include the voluntary exchange of labor for pay.

Nothing but right wing propaganda? Corporate welfare is alive and well and has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses. Only the most ignorant on the right wing allege to believe in Free Market capitalism which has not existed since the fall of Mogadishu.

 

[danielpalos]

The CBO is wrong.

The Right Wing is even more Wrong.

 

[danielpalos]

You're an idiot when it comes to economics, Daniel! If you actually read up on THAT instead of whatever liberal propaganda told you raising the minimum wage would be "good" for entry level workers you'd be far smarter than you are!

You need more than the idiocy of argumentum ad hominem for me to have any confidence in your sincerity.

 

[danielpalos]

Swiss city of Geneva to raise minimum wage to 4 thousand bucks a month, that's 25 bucks an hour

Swiss city Geneva to introduce a minimum wage of over $4,000 a month

The Swiss city of Geneva is to introduce a minimum wage of 23 Swiss francs ($25) an hour, equal to roughly 3,772 Swiss francs ($4,100) a month for a 41-hour work week.

www.cnbc.com

And guess what? They are still poor

But they are not in poverty and should need less social services which should mean less government. Smaller government, only right wingers complain about it on a for-profit basis.

People making minimum wage always was in poverty, always will be in poverty, look at your mother Russia when everyone was making the same wage no products on the shelf, nothing to buy

That happens because the minimum wage was not adjusted for inflation. According some current literature, the minimum wage should be around eighteen dollars an hour if adjusted for inflation. How many people would be in poverty and needing social services if the minimum wage were eighteen dollars an hour now?

According to one estimate the current minimum wage of 7.25 an hour generates approximately 194 dollars per year in federal income tax revenue.

At 15 dollars an hour the federal income tax generated would be approximately 1,852 dollars per year. More than nine times the amount generated by the current minimum wage.

At 18 dollars an hour the federal income tax generated would be approximately 2,554 dollars per year. More than thirteen times the amount generated by the current minimum wage.

Income Tax Calculator - USA - Salary After Taxes

neuvoo™ 【 Online Salary and Tax Calculator 】 provides your income after tax if you work in USA. We calculate how much your payroll will be after tax deductions in any region. Find your net pay for any salary. Our data is based on 2020 tax tables from USA

neuvoo.com

Anyone complaining the Poor do not pay enough in federal income tax should simply raise the minimum wage until they do.

According some current literature, the minimum wage should be around eighteen dollars an hour if adjusted for inflation.

From what starting point in what year?

Here is some clarification for the minimum wage debate. I had a difficult time finding it again. The minimum wage should be around eighteen dollars an hour by 2025.

The Raise the Wage Act passed by the House on July 18 would implement the latter strategy. But even though that represents the more aggressive indexing approach, the starting point for the new wage floor will have effectively fallen 20% since the debate began in earnest. By 2025, a $15-an-hour wage would be the equivalent of $11.93 in 2012, when the Fight for $15 movement started. To truly reflect the original demand for $15, the Raise the Wage Act would need to call for $18.87 in 2025.--https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-minimum-wage-increase-inflation/

Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison claimed Tuesday that the federal minimum wage from 1968 would be nearly $12 an hour today if adjusted for inflation.


Verdict: True

The minimum wage had its strongest purchasing power in 1968, equivalent to $11.65 an hour in 2018 dollars. Some workers were only eligible for a second, lower minimum wage equal to $8.37 an hour today.

FACT CHECK: How Much Would The 1968 Minimum Wage Be Worth Today?

The minimum wage is currently $7.25 an hour

checkyourfact.com

Looks like you were way off.

I had to look it back up again. The eighteen dollar an hour minimum wage is what would need to be by 2025 to keep up with inflation.