Democratic Nominee in 2020

Quote: Mission146

I would like to think that nobody argues that the MW earner both is, and should be, on the bottom. The main point of contention is exactly what should that bottom look like. Between Government-subsidized housing and maybe a few other odds and ends, I don't have any problem with the notion that MW should be such that a single person can afford utilities, food and a non-leaking roof over their heads. Assuming that the person doesn't have any debts, of course.

They can usually do that. The housing may be renting a room not getting a whole apartment. But that is how you start. Heck, I had to step down to that for a few years. If craigslist had existed in 1996 no way I would have rented an entire apartment.

That is what the bottom may well look like. It looked way more that way pre-1965.

But MW is also a starting wage, a training wage. It is how kids learn to work.

Quote: Mission146

I would like to think that nobody argues that the MW earner both is, and should be, on the bottom. The main point of contention is exactly what should that bottom look like. Between Government-subsidized housing and maybe a few other odds and ends, I don't have any problem with the notion that MW should be such that a single person can afford utilities, food and a non-leaking roof over their heads. Assuming that the person doesn't have any debts, of course.

Many conservatives have a conniption fit over tax rates on the wealthy, whose basic needs are always meant under any proposed rate, and often much more.

But try to pay the bottom a decent wage...well, boggles the mind all the excuses they make.

Quote: rxwine

Many conservatives have a conniption fit over tax rates on the wealthy, whose basic needs are always meant under any proposed rate, and often much more.

But try to pay the bottom a decent wage...well, boggles the mind all the excuses they make.

Difference is "the wealthy" earned the money you want to steal. While the people who demand "a decent wage be paid" never signed the front of a paycheck in their lives.

Quote: AZDuffman

MW started at $0.25 per hour.

Right now most places have to pay $10 per hour to attract decent workers.

The market will find the right rate.

Back in your and my part of the USA people were glad to get $3.35 when their mill job vanished.

You cannot legislate people into a "living wage." Unmotivated people will stay at the bottom.

I believe that the market struggled to find the right rate prior to a minimum wage being put into effect in the first place. It strikes me as almost indubitable that there be some sort of floor, otherwise, the result is indentured servitude. I don't think there would have been much need for a MW to begin with if the market could be trusted to operate in a completely laissez-faire way.

Quote: AZDuffman

They can usually do that. The housing may be renting a room not getting a whole apartment. But that is how you start. Heck, I had to step down to that for a few years. If craigslist had existed in 1996 no way I would have rented an entire apartment.

That is what the bottom may well look like. It looked way more that way pre-1965.

But MW is also a starting wage, a training wage. It is how kids learn to work.

I suppose my only counter to your post is that they should basically always (as opposed to usually) be able to do that if they are working a full-time gig. I also agree that it is meant somewhat as a starting wage, especially considering that most MW jobs have built-in raises in place for tenure, if no other reason. I don't disagree with anything except with what the bottom should look like and how virtually guaranteed being no lower than that bottom should be.

Quote: rxwine

Many conservatives have a conniption fit over tax rates on the wealthy, whose basic needs are always meant under any proposed rate, and often much more.

But try to pay the bottom a decent wage...well, boggles the mind all the excuses they make.

Meh. I think it's fair to suggest that some such people assume or believe that the wealthy can spend the money in a manner more effective for the economy than can the Government. It doesn't always happen that way, of course.

I'm afraid you're not going to hook me on, "Tax the wealthy." I'm not in favor of the tax code at all and would much prefer a Universal Sales Tax to anything else, but what for me would constitute a sale (stocks would be included, for example) would be pretty broad. I think everyone is getting taxed their fair share if the taxes are essentially indexed to how much they spend.

Quote: Mission146

I believe that the market struggled to find the right rate prior to a minimum wage being put into effect in the first place. It strikes me as almost indubitable that there be some sort of floor, otherwise, the result is indentured servitude. I don't think there would have been much need for a MW to begin with if the market could be trusted to operate in a completely laissez-faire way.

Indentured servitude?

If wages are too low, people will not work for that wage. Ford had to raise wages to $5 a day to attract good workers, twice the rate at the time. Go ask a McDonald's manager or franchisee how many people the attract at $7.50 per hour.

I used to have a hard time attracting techs who based on production easily earned over twice minimum wage.

Wages will only fall if the economy stalls. You seem to think an employer can offer $2/hr and will have workers lined up.

Quote: AZDuffman

Indentured servitude?

If wages are too low, people will not work for that wage.

Would you prefer to be homeless and starving or homeless and not starving?

Quote:

Ford had to raise wages to $5 a day to attract good workers, twice the rate at the time. Go ask a McDonald's manager or franchisee how many people the attract at $7.50 per hour.

I used to have a hard time attracting techs who based on production easily earned over twice minimum wage.

Wages will only fall if the economy stalls. You seem to think an employer can offer $2/hr and will have workers lined up.

If not a skilled position, working the assembly lines could certainly be a dangerous position, and that's just one example. I also don't know anything about the job market, unemployment rate, workforce participation rate etc. etc. at the specific time you are referencing. Anyway, we've danced this dance before. I've personally seen people in this country work for substantially less than minimum wage in times of sheer desperation and ownership actively try to make sure it stayed that way. I don't think that it's so rare that I happened to be at the only place in this entire country where that was happening, but I guess I could be wrong.

There are employers out there who will **** someone in every possible way that they can get away with or think they can get away with. Absent full employment, there will also always be someone desperate enough to do it the way they want them to.

I don't think people will be lined up for $2 an hour, but I've certainly seen a non-zero number of people work for very close to that.

Quote: AZDuffman

More than my opinion? How about the numbers I gave?

How about your own statement, a "minimum standard of living?" Not a "living wage."

Sorry you cannot understand that now all jobs are supposed to be "living wage." Many are entry level, to get people a start or to fill in gaps they may be having in life. If you want a "living wage" go get skills to justify it.

What do your numbers have to do with a living wage or a minimum standard of living?

The clearly stated purpose of the minimum wage was to stabilize labor and provide a living wage. Sorry you can't understand that.

I don't know if 25 cents did it then, but I know 4.50 won't do it now, neither will 7.25.

If you take the minimum wage from 1950, and then index that for inflation, you will end up with about $22.50
So maybe it took them from 1938 until 1950 (only 12 years) to get the minimum wage up to what would be a living wage now.

Again one of the central purposes of the minimum wage act was to provide a living wage, regardless of skill.

Quote: Dalex64

What do your numbers have to do with a living wage or a minimum standard of living?

The clearly stated purpose of the minimum wage was to stabilize labor and provide a living wage. Sorry you can't understand that.

I don't know if 25 cents did it then, but I know 4.50 won't do it now, neither will 7.25.

If you take the minimum wage from 1950, and then index that for inflation, you will end up with about $22.50
So maybe it took them from 1938 until 1950 (only 12 years) to get the minimum wage up to what would be a living wage now.

Again one of the central purposes of the minimum wage act was to provide a living wage, regardless of skill.

No. Minimum wage in 1950 was .75 per hour. About $8.00 today.

Please check your facts before you post. Minimum wage was NEVER about more than the lowest wage. A floor to index federal and other wages by.

If you want to spew that kind of exaggeration at a Bernie rally go ahead. Here we know better.