Maybe this should be renamed by the mods to minimum wage discussion?
Also, minimum wage should be a wage that allows one person to live with all of the essentials in the modern day society in which they exist. It's almost impossible to get by without a cell phone these days but you don't need an expensive one, a walmart cheap samsung with a cheap data plan is fine. Same with home internet, utilities, rent, food, etc.
Why not $100? Because $15 an hour would give a person working 40 hours a week roughly enough money to have both the essentials they need to live, plus a bit left over to invest either in stocks, other investments, their own educaiton/training, or to blow how they see fit.
That's the thing about mixed market economics that combines both aspects of capitalism and socialism and a bit of communism - it takes all of the aspects from each to apply to a society in which everyone can get by fairly. We still want a tiered pay system to exist, we don't want everyone making the exact same amount of money. People should still have the ability to get rich, but those who aren't should be able to work 40 hours a week and get by. The "Why not just pay $100/hr?!" is a dumb strawman always brought up because we're still trying to abide by a tiered system of wealth where those who do the minimum get by and those who do more get more.
Also, yes, someone working the grill at a fast food joint could make maybe 20 burgers an hour (asspull number) but with how technology has improved these days, most fast food joints pump out far more these days. Food is just far faster and easier to make than it ever has been, meaning the company makes more sales, meaning they make even more money. Companies like McD's and Burger King report record profits every single year, but the only people who see that improvement in record profits are the shareholders and executives. Why do the people ACTUALLY DOING THE WORK ON THE GROUND not get to reap at least a little bit of that?
Here's a question for "Libertarianism". If there was zero minimum wage, what's to stop companies from paying people a quarter per hour? The answer you might come up with is "Well people just won't work for a quarter an hour, they'll expect more money to work." And yet history has shown us (the US industrial revolution, among a multitude of other examples) that people will work for pennies even if just to survive from day to day. Zero minimum wage and no unionization would take us back to the era before minimum wage was a thing, where workers were exploited heavily and basically slaves to their company, only paid just barely enough for a little bread each day. Or even worse, paid in company credits which they could only spend at the company store. THAT is the world of zero minimum wage. The Libertarian dream world of limited laws, where people negotiate fair wages for themselves, doesn't exist. It cannot exist. It will never exist. All we have to work with is the framework of laws in which we exist, and the best way to tackle poverty atm is to raise the minimum wage. Even $12/hr would be a good place to be, far better than the shit $7.25/hr.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
libertarians are so funny, be careful of them bears.
I think the problem with a blanket minimum wage, is that such a cost of living isn't the same everywhere... not even close.
There are countries who do have no minimum wage, and they do just fine. The thing to stop them is the employees refusing to work fo those wages, and consumers refusing to spend money at any business that pays their employees such low wages.
Unions are a good thing, and should be used... both as employees, and as consumers.
Like I said, guys like Manchin have no reason to support such an arbitrary number. The burden is on the people trying to get him to vote for it.
Manchin and a few others are convinced, which is why it's currently dead.
- - - Updated - - -
This isn't about libertarianism.
Ok riddle me this, maybe i have this wrong???
$3.35 was the min wage in 1982
The Base they use for inflation is CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)
1982 = 100 set as the baseline by the BLS
the CPI-U us now 263.161
So if 3.35 is the base of 100, 263.16 is 2.632 times greater
so 3.35 x 2.632 = $8.82
If we go back to 1947 when the CPI-u started it would be $4.90 an hour min wage based on using the 1947 data as baseline vs today
LOL, you want to use this ridiculous CPI-u as a way to track inflation relative to wages???
So you would support a reduction of min wage to $4.90??
The measurement of inflation has always been under done by multiples almost every year. Its a rediclous process using that as the only baseline for determining where min wage should be set
unless you are stupid and think people can live off $10,192 a year unless they were living under a bridge.
Buh Byeeeeeeeeeeee !!
The cost of living has increased since 1968, when the minimum wage value was just under $12/hr. And I'm not talking about the overall cost of living. Adjusted for inflation, cost of living has gone up dramatically. Neither I nor anyone else can give you a giant mathematical breakdown of why $15/hr is necessary. Wages in general are generally arbitrary numbers. Why should you make the money you currently make? Could you give me a detailed breakdown of why you deserve whatever your salary is, the exact value you contribute to your company, how much money you make them, both directly and indirectly? Could you give me a graph of people working in your same field with the same qualifications and experience?
Yeah, you're not going to be able to pull that out of your ass without a ton of work that's completely unnecessary solely for the purpose of winning an internet argument.
Effectively all you're doing is sea lioning here. You're demanding people provide you with concrete proof of something that is an abstract concept.
The reason most people come by $15/hr is that in many regions, people who make $15/hr or around there abouts tend to make ends meet and have a little left over in the end for investment or free spending. So my reason "why" it should be $15/hr is that people need to make a basic living plus have a little bit on the side to either improve their fortunes or spend away as they see fit. The essential expenses are something people are always going to spend on, food, housing, etc, but overall people would be able to afford more nutritious food for themselves which would create more demand for food production. The extra money on the side would also create additional demand so that other companies that deal in non necessary living expenses would experience increased demand and business. It would stimulate the economy and create more fluidity of capital, which is a desired effect. Failing economies happen when money stagnates, when capital fluidity stops.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
I had to go back, because you originally posted no data, then added some later.
From what you provided, it didn't give any actual hard numbers for a single person. It was a history on the CPI.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2014/ar...experience.htm
The only reason these countries do just fine is their unions are so strong they may as well have a set minimum wage. The US unions have all but been busted apart by conservatives. It might be another story if the US had strong unions, but you simply can't remove the minimum wage in the US and suddenly expect unions to pick up the slack. It just wouldn't happen. It's a good idea, but it wouldn't happen.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
And that's the problem, the number then becomes arbitrary.
Sure, it feels nice to say that people deserve more... but in practice, states like WV will suffer for it.
As for my income, it's largely based on what my employer and my clients (for my job, as well as my business) are willing to pay, compared to what I'm willing to work for. In essence, it's simple supply and demand.
Would I be willing to work for less? yes.
Would they be willing to pay me more? yes.
$15 an hour was really just a talking point that turned into a rallying cry. That's the problem.
- - - Updated - - -
So, why is it not $16.54 an hour?
Is that based on one region, an average of all?