Democratic Nominee in 2020

Quote: AZDuffman

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.

I could be wrong, but I think MW, at its highest point and after indexed for inflation, would be a little bit over $11.50 and qould have occurred at some point in the 60's. In fact, I just looked it up and found this:

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/business/us-minimum-wage-by-year/index.html

Assuming that can be trusted, it says that $1.60 in 1968 would be $11.55/hour in today's money.

Hills and valleys, hills and valleys. Beyond dispute is the fact that MW is effectively lower (inflationary indexed spending power) than it was in 1950 and pretty damn near the lowest indexed point it has ever been since if you don't include years where an increase to the minimum wage almost immediately followed. I think it's pretty evident that it's about that time for it to go up again and be indexed to something, but that will never happen because:

A.) The Democrats would lose their talking point in future elections.

AND:

B.) I doubt the Republicans would go for it.

OMG!!! What if we have a deflationary cycle!? What would we ever do?

Um...decrease the minimum wage for the following year? Workers could assume their wages/salaries might decrease by an equivalent (but not to exceed) percentage.

That wasn't hard.

-----I also agree that MW was a floor by which to index wages. You guys aren't debating one another's points. Nobody disputes that MW is a floor. Should or should not the floor provide a living wage is the question at hand.

Here are words from the Fair Labor Standards Act

Quote:

FINDING AND DECLARATION OF POLICY
SEC. 2. (a) The Congress hereby finds that the existence, in in-
dustries engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for
commerce, of labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of
the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency,
and general well-being of workers (1) causes commerce and the
channels and instrumentalities of commerce to be used to spread
and perpetuate such labor conditions among the workers of the sev-
eral States; (2) burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in
commerce; (3) constitutes an unfair method of competition in com-
merce; (4) leads to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of goods in commerce; and (5) interferes
with the orderly and fair marketing of goods in commerce. The
Congress further finds that the employment of persons in domestic
service in households affects commerce.

2(a) is the part I have been talking about.
Congress wanted to address "the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency,
and general well-being of workers"

Quote: AZDuffman

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.

Just accept the fact these taxes are legal, and stop lying about them being stealing.

Quote: rxwine

Just accept the fact these taxes are legal, and stop lying about them being stealing.

Legal or not, taxes are theft.

Quote: Mission146

I could be wrong, but I think MW, at its highest point and after indexed for inflation, would be a little bit over $11.50 and qould have occurred at some point in the 60's. In fact, I just looked it up and found this:

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/business/us-minimum-wage-by-year/index.html

Assuming that can be trusted, it says that $1.60 in 1968 would be $11.55/hour in today's money.

You are probably about right there. At the lease close enough that I am not going to research being off by a few cents per hour.

Quote:

Hills and valleys, hills and valleys. Beyond dispute is the fact that MW is effectively lower (inflationary indexed spending power) than it was in 1950 and pretty damn near the lowest indexed point it has ever been since if you don't include years where an increase to the minimum wage almost immediately followed. I think it's pretty evident that it's about that time for it to go up again and be indexed to something, but that will never happen because:

But it has gone up. In many states they have seen fit to raise it, a good thing because it works better at the state level than the national level. It also does not matter because pretty much everyone and anyone can find a starting wage several dollars above the federal min. IOW, the market is now setting it, so no real reason to raise it. Meanwhile, nonprofits and other quasi-government entities can pay the MW as there will always be a certain class of workers who flock here anyways. That class usually being rich kids trying to get some kind of "in" with someone. IOW, Bernie Sanders and other political campaigns can keep paying low wages if they wish and save money.

Quote: AZDuffman

Legal or not, taxes are theft.

I hope you're not using any free roads, or you're in receipt of stolen goods.

Quote: AZDuffman

But it has gone up. In many states they have seen fit to raise it, a good thing because it works better at the state level than the national level. It also does not matter because pretty much everyone and anyone can find a starting wage several dollars above the federal min. IOW, the market is now setting it, so no real reason to raise it. Meanwhile, nonprofits and other quasi-government entities can pay the MW as there will always be a certain class of workers who flock here anyways. That class usually being rich kids trying to get some kind of "in" with someone. IOW, Bernie Sanders and other political campaigns can keep paying low wages if they wish and save money.

State laws for minimum wage are like any other law: They cannot be lesser in their effects than are the laws of the federal government, but provided they are otherwise constitutionally compliant, the laws can exceed what federal law demands. I think there are something like twenty states that either have no minimum wage law of their own or such law is explicitly the same as the federal government, many of them are southern states, there's a F'n surprise.

And...that's the point. They could, but they won't. I imagine many of those southern states would have a minimum wage of $7.25 in the year 2072 if the Federal Government would permit.

Again, you keep maintaining that everyone can find a job that starts above the federal minimum wage and that's just wrong. For your point to be right, there would have to be ZERO JOBS that pay the current federal minimum wage and there are presently more than zero. Hell, there are some places (as I mentioned) that try to work around even paying that much.

Even if I grant that the market is setting the wages...and I believe it largely does for the individual occupations in question...what the market sets the wages at is still predicated upon there being some kind of floor...which you admit exists. The reason that raising it is suggested, from what I can tell, is the suggestion that the floor needs to go up combined with the assumption that the market will move the wages up in a way somewhat correlative with the floor going up.

Quote: Mission146

I hope you're not using any free roads, or you're in receipt of stolen goods.

Being paid for with my stolen money so calling it even.

Quote: AZDuffman

Being paid for with my stolen money so calling it even.

Based on previous occupations mentioned, your tax receipts are insufficient to build every road that you have ever been on. Although, perhaps enough to get a few blocks down and back.

Quote: Mission146

State laws for minimum wage are like any other law: They cannot be lesser in their effects than are the laws of the federal government, but provided they are otherwise constitutionally compliant, the laws can exceed what federal law demands. I think there are something like twenty states that either have no minimum wage law of their own or such law is explicitly the same as the federal government, many of them are southern states, there's a F'n surprise.

And...that's the point. They could, but they won't. I imagine many of those southern states would have a minimum wage of $7.25 in the year 2072 if the Federal Government would permit.

Well, AR and FL are above the federal level. But what does what southern states do matter? Have you noticed that southern states have a strange mix of booming areas and areas of extreme poverty with few jobs? When a place has few jobs, the last thing you want to do is take away their competitive advantage on lower labor costs. You want to tell the guy in Appalachia who loses his $9 an hour job how great the $15 minimum is but too bad he has to go hungry because his employer laid him off?

Quote:

Again, you keep maintaining that everyone can find a job that starts above the federal minimum wage and that's just wrong. For your point to be right, there would have to be ZERO JOBS that pay the current federal minimum wage and there are presently more than zero. Hell, there are some places (as I mentioned) that try to work around even paying that much.

Uh, not exactly. As I said, some people work for a lower amount for a variety of reasons. It is what the Bernie Sanders campaign is paying bottom level people. It is what the not for profit pays. It is what the work-study pays. Other jobs are out there but people make tradeoffs. I took MW as work-study for both flexibility and because the "work" was a joke. I used the time to study or explore the early days of the internet.

IOW, just because someone takes the lower wage does not mean they cannot get the higher wage.

Quote:

Even if I grant that the market is setting the wages...and I believe it largely does for the individual occupations in question...what the market sets the wages at is still predicated upon there being some kind of floor...which you admit exists. The reason that raising it is suggested, from what I can tell, is the suggestion that the floor needs to go up combined with the assumption that the market will move the wages up in a way somewhat correlative with the floor going up.

Not really. Hardly anyplace can pay the floor, not in this booming economy. In the real world (i.e.: places that make a profit not government where many wages are indexed to MW) workers do not just get a raise because the MW below them went up. If a MCD franchisee can pay $10 now they can only pay $10 when the wage goes up.

What the "floor" is about is union contracts, many of which are tied to the MW. This is the dirty little secret. Unions kick money to Democrats, MW workers do not. Follow the money.