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.
IMO, no U.S. Congress will pass any “living wage” act until they have passed and we’ve experienced a federal minimum wage rate that’s been annually monitored and updated when necessary to retain its purchasing power. I have no doubt the purchasing power of that minimum wage rate, (or something else that’s similar to it), that will inevitably be passed and enacted in the USA. I also expect that rate's purchasing power to be substantially greater that that of our current federal minimum. Respectfully, Supposn
But, none of that answers the question.
And, until the question is answered there can be no meaningful discussion on the subject.
Respectfully, I would suggest you study some recent American history, and rethink your stance.
The David-Bacon Act of 1931 forced public construction projects to pay the prevailing local wage. It was expressly designed to price cheap black labor out of the construction market. Subsequent minimum wage laws had a similar effect, and were explicitly intended to slant the job market in favor of white workers, pricing black workers out. ...
Bisterpeanuts,I don’t suppose you’ll be surprised by my being thus far uniformed with regard to the David-Bacon Act of 1931. You’re contending that prior to the act’s enactment, ‘black laborers actually had higher employment rates than did whites.
Are you contending the act was socially and/or economically detrimental because it reduced unemployment among black laborers? Are you contending that all, or any significant proportion of USA’s rates of unemployment was due to the David-Bacon Act, or are you contending that all, or any significant proportion of USA’s rates of unemployment among different races of laborers was primarily due to the act?
What are you specifically contending? Respectfully, Supposn
Respectfully, I would suggest you study some recent American history, and rethink your stance. ... It would make more sense to eliminate the minimum wage and let the prevailing wages float according to supply-and-demand. It would eliminate the artificially boosted cost of labor, give the price advantage back to the people at the bottom of the scale, and provide a path to more employment for the most disadvantaged groups. ...
Bisterpeanuts, how did you arrive at such an illogical conclusion? How does permitting employers to pay the most extremely poor wage rates increase the purchasing powers of our nation’s median wage rate?
To the extent of its purchasing power, the federal minimum wage rate reduces incidences and extents of poverty among USA’s working-poor.
Eliminating the federal minimum wage rate would only serve to reduce the purchasing powers of USA’s of our median and our generally prevailing wage rates, while increasing our incidences and extents of poverty among our working-poor.
I've come a long way since FMW, but I haven't forgotten. Just because I don't make exactly that, doesn't mean I think it should be abolished. So long as there is one person making FMW, that means there is at least one employer who would otherwise pay them less.
It would hurt every wage earning person. In higher earning positions in union jobs, for example, even though management isn't union and stands on the opposite side of the fence, they need to realize that their salaries are such because they need to be higher than the hourly union wage in order to fill leadership roles. Why would someone take a promotion to make less than their direct reports?
- You can't trust trickle-down economics (hence EIC, child tax credit, SNAP, TANF, WIC, etc.)
- You can't trust someone will pay you $7.25/hr (hence the FMW)
- You can't trust a company will accommodate you (hence ADA)
- You can't trust you'll be given UNPAID medical leave without being fired (hence FMLA)
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,351 posts, read 8,569,440 times
Reputation: 16698
Quote:
Originally Posted by crusinsusan
It shouldn't even be a question. Every adult human being working full time should be able to live on a wage. So yes. A fair minimum wage should be a human right. Simple. Only the stupid and cruel think otherwise.
When I was younger minimum wage was never meant to live on. How to you set the level for what the amount is to live on?
What should it be in New York City versus smalltown Oklahoma Or Arkansas? How about a single person versus one supporting a family of 6?
Or one with elderly parents or special needs? What size tv or cell phone should be included in setting the wage.
Labeling people stupid and cruel that don’t agree with you is short sited. You also sound like maybe you might be stupid for not having thought it out?
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,351 posts, read 8,569,440 times
Reputation: 16698
I’ll also add that if I’m making a living wage At McDonald’s in tinytown South Dakota and decide I like San Francisco or Beverly hillls that when I move there my pay will be automated so I can afford to live there too?
Heck why go to school to get a good job to live somewhere nice when it will be given to you.
Of course everyone will want to live there too or on the beach in SoCal so they will all need places to live meaning demand goes up, rents go up, minimum wage goes up.
It shouldn't even be a question. Every adult human being working full time should be able to live on a wage. So yes. A fair minimum wage should be a human right. Simple. Only the stupid and cruel think otherwise.
2.3% of the population who work make the federal minimum wage. Its a non issue. The vast majority are younger workers, many living at home.
Let states and businesses decide how much people should be paid. Where I spend my summers you can rent a house on the federal minimum wage and live fine. I know personally people who are doing that working at a dollar store. I am in a town in Oklahoma with 8,000 people you can easily rent a house for $300-$400 a month. A single person can bring in about $1,000 a month and pay the bills. A couple working minimum wage can make double that. Raise the minimum and their hours will be cut. They will have to work harder and make the same money. To me that is stupid and cruel.
The feds need to stay out of this. If you want to motivate people to reelect Trump. Push the minimum wage issue.
Last edited by Oklazona Bound; 07-29-2020 at 07:53 PM..
2.3% of the population who work make the federal minimum wage. Its a non issue. The vast majority are younger workers, many living at home.
It's actually less than that - about 2% of hourly-paid workers, per BLS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aslowdodge
I’ll also add that if I’m making a living wage At McDonald’s in tinytown South Dakota and decide I like San Francisco or Beverly hillls that when I move there my pay will be automated so I can afford to live there too?
Heck why go to school to get a good job to live somewhere nice when it will be given to you.
I wouldn't call a minimum-wage McDonald's job in Beverly Hills 'giving away' opportunity.
Last edited by CorporateCowboy; 07-29-2020 at 09:17 PM..
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.
