Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Inflation adjusted, the minimum wage in 1968 was $10.25. I don't see why we can't set that as our national minimum wage and index it to inflation. I think there should be regional adjustments to the minimum wage. $10.25 spends totally differently in Little Rock or Mississippi compared to Manhattan or San Francisco. I also think that if the minimum wage is bumped to $15, there should be exclusions for teens and for the unemployed entering the workforce for their first 90 days.
This is always my favorite argument made by the "raise the minimum wage" crowd. Why? Because it is a prime example of cherry picking data to fit your argument. 1968 saw a drastic spike in the minimum wage. Adjusted for inflation, 1968 was the highest that minimum wage has ever been. What you people don't like to talk about is that if we were to adjust the minimum wage based on when it started in 1938, it would be sitting at around $4.10 per hour.
Minimum wage is minimum wage. Stop trying to lift people out of poverty by trying to equalize the skilled and the non skilled labor pools and start demanding policies that promote domestic job growth. We'll all end up much better off that way.
This is always my favorite argument made by the "raise the minimum wage" crowd. Why? Because it is a prime example of cherry picking data to fit your argument. 1968 saw a drastic spike in the minimum wage. Adjusted for inflation, 1968 was the highest that minimum wage has ever been. What you people don't like to talk about is that if we were to adjust the minimum wage based on when it started in 1938, it would be sitting at around $4.10 per hour.
Minimum wage is minimum wage. Stop trying to lift people out of poverty by trying to equalize the skilled and the non skilled labor pools and start demanding policies that promote domestic job growth. We'll all end up much better off that way.
That got picked up by some MSM site and people have been citing that ever since.
Nothing more than skewed propaganda to sway sentiment and incite outrage at DC.
Fear or anger are the two biggest movers of laws in the US.
I thought the whole $15/hr nonsense had died out but it seems a lot of politicians and groups are still fighting for it. From a purely logical standpoint the whole $15/hr demand makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
The minimum wage guy gets a raise to $15/hr so then what happens to the guy/gal with a little more skill currently making $15/hr, does he get a commensurate raise to $20/hr? So then the guy with a bit more skill than that who is making $20/hr is going to revolt and demand $25/hr... so what you have here is the whole hierarchy moving upwards.
The increase in salary without a corresponding efficiency/productivity increase in the economy creates nothing but pure inflation so the net effect is absolutely and virtually nothing.
Instead of increasing minimum wage focus on improving productivity, encourage people to get more skills. Improve upward mobility by providing easier access to education. Increasing minimum wage is not the answer to current social problems.
It's absurd that such a large proportion of the general populace and people like Bernie Sanders and other politicians do not understand such basic concepts.
It makes about as much sense as promising free tuition at community colleges.
NOTHING is free. SOMEONE is paying the teachers, etc..
And it is the TAXPAYERS.
Politicians making lofty empty promises with selfish motivations
This is always my favorite argument made by the "raise the minimum wage" crowd. Why? Because it is a prime example of cherry picking data to fit your argument. 1968 saw a drastic spike in the minimum wage. Adjusted for inflation, 1968 was the highest that minimum wage has ever been. What you people don't like to talk about is that if we were to adjust the minimum wage based on when it started in 1938, it would be sitting at around $4.10 per hour.
Minimum wage is minimum wage. Stop trying to lift people out of poverty by trying to equalize the skilled and the non skilled labor pools and start demanding policies that promote domestic job growth. We'll all end up much better off that way.
One thing that you're missing and others miss as well is that most on minimum wage are subsidized by other taxpayers via government assistance programs. Furthermore, by subsidizing poor workers, taxpayers are also subsidizing corporate costs (not necessarily profits b/c corp's do not always make a profit for a multitude of reasons).
You can claim that this subsidization produces lower prices but 1) that's very debatable and 2) not all taxpayers take advantage of this yet all taxpayers pay taxes. Therefore it turns into taxpayers subsiding consumers of particular goods. Why should I subsidize consumers of Wal Mart simply because they want a 50 cent cheaper container of sour cream?
The question then becomes should taxpayers subsidize workers, corporate costs, and certain consumers or should corporations (via revenue) and their consumers (via prices) cover their own costs? You claim (being partially correct) that prices will experience inflation; that's true for price inelastic goods/services but not true for price elastic goods/services.
For goods that are price elastic, meaning that a change in price has a large effect on quantity demanded, corporations will not be able to raise prices but will focus more on cutting costs and improving efficiency. Will workers lose jobs in these cases? Most likely.
For goods that are price inelastic, the corporation can simply raise the price and their consumers will in effect be the ones now subsidizing this minimum wage increase. What's wrong with this? As a consumer you can choose your price level. If you don't like it choose a substitute good/service or stop using the good/service altogether.
As it stands at present, all taxpayers are subsidizing corporate costs, poorer wage earners, and consumers of certain goods.
I'm not really good at explaining complex topics but I hope you got the gist. If you dive deep into this topic , you can see that raising minimum wage above the subsidization threshold will actually be a net benefit to the economy as a whole. The economy depends on consumers and producers. It doesn't depend on specific consumers or producers; in effect the economy (to use an example) doesn't need Wal Mart or their customers to function properly.
For the people against the 15 dollar minimum wage, put yourselves in their shoes. Their lives suck. With today's cost of living, 15 dollars still doesn't mean ****. Especially for the burger flipper in NY or LA. The real debate on wages shouldn't be against a McDonald's employee barely getting by but CEOs making 300x what their desk jockeys make.
One thing that you're missing and others miss as well is that most on minimum wage are subsidized by other taxpayers via government assistance programs. Furthermore, by subsidizing poor workers, taxpayers are also subsidizing corporate costs (not necessarily profits b/c corp's do not always make a profit for a multitude of reasons).
You can claim that this subsidization produces lower prices but 1) that's very debatable and 2) not all taxpayers take advantage of this yet all taxpayers pay taxes. Therefore it turns into taxpayers subsiding consumers of particular goods. Why should I subsidize consumers of Wal Mart simply because they want a 50 cent cheaper container of sour cream?
The question then becomes should taxpayers subsidize workers, corporate costs, and certain consumers or should corporations (via revenue) and their consumers (via prices) cover their own costs? You claim (being partially correct) that prices will experience inflation; that's true for price inelastic goods/services but not true for price elastic goods/services.
For goods that are price elastic, meaning that a change in price has a large effect on quantity demanded, corporations will not be able to raise prices but will focus more on cutting costs and improving efficiency. Will workers lose jobs in these cases? Most likely.
For goods that are price inelastic, the corporation can simply raise the price and their consumers will in effect be the ones now subsidizing this minimum wage increase. What's wrong with this? As a consumer you can choose your price level. If you don't like it choose a substitute good/service or stop using the good/service altogether.
As it stands at present, all taxpayers are subsidizing corporate costs, poorer wage earners, and consumers of certain goods.
I'm not really good at explaining complex topics but I hope you got the gist. If you dive deep into this topic , you can see that raising minimum wage above the subsidization threshold will actually be a net benefit to the economy as a whole. The economy depends on consumers and producers. It doesn't depend on specific consumers or producers; in effect the economy (to use an example) doesn't need Wal Mart or their customers to function properly.
Can you point to one time in the last 75 years where raising the minimum wage had a long term effect (5+ years) of reducing poverty? I seriously doubt that you can, because when the minimum wage goes up, the market has a tendency to fix itself. If the minimum wage goes up to $15 per hour, within 2-5 years $15 per hour will be poverty wages. Historically, this has happened with every minimum wage hike since 1938.
For the people against the 15 dollar minimum wage, put yourselves in their shoes. Their lives suck. With today's cost of living, 15 dollars still doesn't mean ****. Especially for the burger flipper in NY or LA. The real debate shouldn't be against a McDonald's employee barely getting by but CEOs making 300x what their desk jockeys make.
Actually, the real debate should be against policies which encourage offshoring and outsourcing.
Minimum wage was established so that someone making that wage could buy food and have a place to live. The basics.
It was never meant as a "kiddie" wage for kids.
The 1970's was the last time you could actually do that. The wage has not kept pace with inflation. U.S. Department of Labor -- History -- Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938: this link will explain the history of the min. wage.
Can you point to one time in the last 75 years where raising the minimum wage had a long term effect (5+ years) of reducing poverty? I seriously doubt that you can, because when the minimum wage goes up, the market has a tendency to fix itself. If the minimum wage goes up to $15 per hour, within 2-5 years $15 per hour will be poverty wages. Historically, this has happened with every minimum wage hike since 1938.
I can't point to one because I haven't studied it nor have I read up on the subject. Poverty will always exist in a capitalist system. We're not talking about poverty here. What we're talking about is the subsidization of corporate costs and consumer prices.
As for higher levels of minimum wage becoming the new poverty level, you're confusing cause and effect.
Our economic growth model is predicated on healthy levels of inflation. The need for ever higher minimum wages is a symptom of our economic growth model. You're essentially claiming that we have inflation because we've resorted to hiking the minimum wage across the decades. That's a silly argument. We've increased minimum wages because we have inflation and the erosion of purchasing power.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
