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.
Minimum wages are not the problem, inflation is. An increase in minimum wage will stoke inflation at the expense of everyone on a fixed income. A raise is meaningless when the additional dollars buy less because of inflation.
Democrats regained the congressional House. Now they should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate.
I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is sensible.
It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority of the U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill to respond to the House’s bill. Usually, there are differences that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.
Possible House’s negotiating positions:
The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power, give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.
The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.
I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.
The Democrats did not confront it when they controlled congress under Obama, so what makes you think they will now?
Bush was the last administration to approve a wage increase.
Minimum wages are not the problem, inflation is. An increase in minimum wage will stoke inflation at the expense of everyone on a fixed income. A raise is meaningless when the additional dollars buy less because of inflation.
Yes, everyone screams "we want more money", but no one asks why their dollar has less purchasing power.
Democrats regained the congressional House. Now they should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate.
I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is sensible.
It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority of the U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill to respond to the House’s bill. Usually, there are differences that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.
Possible House’s negotiating positions:
The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power, give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.
The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.
I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.
Democrap slave masters in action again? What a surprise.
Minimum wages are not the problem, inflation is. An increase in minimum wage will stoke inflation at the expense of everyone on a fixed income. A raise is meaningless when the additional dollars buy less because of inflation.
Engineman, if there were no reduction of U.S. currency’s purchasing powers, (i.e. currency inflation), we would continue having a need for a federal minimum wage rate of adequate purchasing power.
The FMW rate’s much less a cause, and much more a victim of that inflation. We experience inflation even when the FMW rate’s not increased. The FMW rate’s certainly not among the primary causes of the U.S. dollar’s lesser purchasing power.
It Will be blocked by the senate. Minimum wage, if any, needs to be a state or local policy. Setting the same minimum wage for New York and podunk North Dakota is just plain stupid.
Democrats regained the congressional House. Now they should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate.
I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is sensible.
It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority of the U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill to respond to the House’s bill. Usually, there are differences that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.
Possible House’s negotiating positions:
The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power, give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.
The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.
I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.
That is a 10th amendment issue.
Ask Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Thomas.....
...
... the problem with all the fools shouting raise the min wage, is they don't see the big picture. Here is an example of what will happen with this 'raising':
minimum wage is for UNSKILLED currently at 7.20
I pay my UNSKILLED laborers (that clean the shop) over $9 an hour, the min wage is $7.2
an example: I run a maintenance shop
I have a shop foreman...$24/hr
I have 3 mechanics.......$22/hr
I have a parts manager...$22/hr
I have 2 mechanic helpers...$14
I have 2 parts workers/drivers...$12
I have 2 labors (to clear the shop)....$9 (2 over min)
minimum wage is $7.2
the 'government' raises the minimum wage to 15
now I HAVE to increase the laborers wage to AT LEAST 15.. and he will WANT $17 (2 over min)....but If I give the "unskilled" laborer $17 then the driver (must maintain a clean license) will want more (hey boss, I was making $3 more than the unskilled guy) ...as so on, and so on...
either that or you will make what was 'above' min wage skilled worker to being min wage workers
thus RAISING THE COSTS of my SERVICE that I provide to the society.....
I would to raise salaries on mech helpers, drivers, and laborers...not to mention the actual SKILLED workers....meanwhile the business will end up failing because it's too costly to stay in business
so either costs will go up....or people will get laid-off......because as a small shop owner I can't afford to give any more than I am giving.
WorkingClassHero, your enterprise suffers no COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE due to the federal minimum wage rate. Your USA competitors are all equally subject to the same federal regulations which legally enforce an explicitly defined MINIMUM rate.
Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensating_differential .
You want to argue with an economic concept that actually affects all enterprises with paid employees? If there were no legally mandated minimum rate, your enterprise would continue dealing with the economic concepts of WAGE DIFFERENTIALS.
[The federal minimum wage rate promotes the concept that “we all do better when we all do better”, (Which ex-senator Al Franken attributes to another previous U.S. Senator from Minnesota)].
if your enterprise is unstainable due to the federal minimum wage rate, its preferable that your enterprise raises its prices or folds-down rather than permitting it to operate in a net detrimental manner rather than net contributing to our nation’s economic and social well-being.
An enterprise that illegally pays less than the federal minimum rate is net detrimental to our nation, but you apparently don't see the big picture.
Minimum wages are not the problem, inflation is. An increase in minimum wage will stoke inflation at the expense of everyone on a fixed income. A raise is meaningless when the additional dollars buy less because of inflation.
Liberals couldn't care less. Campaign on $15 minimal wage hikes, watch inflation wreck havoc, then when re-election comes up campaign on $20 an hour minimal wage hike
That is a 10th amendment issue.
Ask Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Thomas.....
BentBow, I didn’t conceive of a U.S. president resigning rather than risking being legally removed from his office. It’s conceivable that the U.S. Supreme Court could override all legal precedents and overturn the federal minimum wage rate. But if you’re betting that way, I suggest you don’t bet too much and don’t bet unless you get very big odds.
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.
