Should states in the U.S raise minimum wage or abolish it completely?

[Edge-]

Forcing Texas to adhere to federal mandatory wage

They...already do, dude. Sure there are exceptions like unpaid internships and shit, but that's not unique to Texas.

[Captain Proton]

Why not let the unions negotiate for fair salaries?

We don't have a minimum wage here in Sweden, but low-salaried workers earn a lot more (relatively) than they do in the U.S, and would still earn a lot more even if the minimum wage was bumped up to 15 dollars, even counting on higher taxes.

Like I said, I believe minimum wage isn't a good thing, because that sets a legal minimum that companies can get away with. If there is no minimum wage the unions and workers have to negotiate for good wages themselves which, here at least, has lead to higher wages than what they would have if there was a minimum level companies could sit on.

Because unions don't have the power in a lot of the US that they do in Sweden.

In the context of labor law in the United States, the term "right-to-work laws" refers to state laws that prohibit union security agreements between employers and labor unions. Under these laws, employees in unionized workplaces are banned from negotiating contracts which require employees who are not union members to contribute to the costs of union representation.[1]

According to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, right-to-work laws prohibit union security agreements, or agreements between employers and labor unions, that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring. Right-to-work laws do not aim to provide general guarantee of employment to people seeking work, but rather are a government ban on contractual agreements between employers and union employees requiring workers to pay for the costs of union representation.[2]

[Muzjhath]

Because unions don't have the power in a lot of the US that they do in Sweden.

So, the funny thing with those laws are that in Sweden I technically have a union negotiated contract for my employment. I'm not a union member myself as I work for company A but work at company B. Had I been employed by B I'd have been a member of their union, they are great guys.
But all basic contract stuff I get as in practice the only contract bigger employers have in Sweden are union negotiated. And at times they make getting an induvidial raise and not just standard raise everyone gets hard as fuck.

However, being employed outside of a union contract? Doubt the company would be willing to take that hurdle and write a full employment contract just for one worker. And the worker would be an idiot who'd need a lawyer competent in the right fields of law to know if it was worth signing.

So, conclusion. In so many ways the "right-to-work laws" just break the mind of Swedish thinkers. As 95% of all jobs, if not more, that aren't self-employment, are in effect covered by union negotiated collective contracts. (Lots of small places that aren't unionized because it's 4 guys still have a union contract they just copy-pasted the basics of).
And while the union doesn't get any of my money, anytime they change the basic employment contract for the better? I benefit from it. At the same time, they won't protect me if a boss gets angry and wants me removed for bad reasons if one of their members is in the fireing line as well.

[Kokolums]

There seems to be some fundamental misunderstanding of what unions represent and mean to Americans. There is widespread approval of the "concept" of unions in the US. As the poll shows, 68% of the public approve of labor unions in general. But given real-world applications of unions, Americans widely vote against the notion. Take for example AB5 in California. AB5 was a union push. Its goal was to destroy the 1099 gig economy in California to try to create union jobs to replace them. That attempt resulted in voter backlash, with Californians voting for prop 22 to protect 1099 jobs for rideshare employees. If the public truly wanted unions, they would have voted no on prop 22.

Perhaps Americans like labor unions in some essential industries such as auto manufacturing, but in the general economy they find it antiquated. Something like that is probably taking place because it certainly is not a straight-up yes to labor unions.

[Attackrabbit]

Didn't prop 22 pass because the companies that would have been affected spent a bonkers amount on advertising and befuddled people into thinking it was a good idea by telling them their meals etc would go up in price significantly...plus as far as I'm aware it's been ruled unconstitutional...

[Biglog]

To some degree the market will set the minimum wage for an area. And one indirect benefit from the pandemic has been that many workers are no longer willing to accept below-market wages. I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised that loyal employees that were quickly laid off to save money by their employers as soon as the pandemic hit, aren't running back to the same employers over a year later that want to hire them back at minimum wage.

Why minimum wage is needed and comes into play is still the main reason it was put in place initially. That reason is especially in more rural areas with fewer employers, employers can kind of monopolize the workforce and exploit them by underpaying wages since there are no/few other places to work in many cases. It makes headlines like it is new but urban McDonald's have been paying $15/hour for many years already for that reason, because they have competition. The issue is that a McDonald's restaurant in a smaller town will pay $8/hour because they can get away with it. They aren't charging 1/2 for a value meal in those areas, it's purely exploiting those workers for more profit. So that is why it is definitely needed, and should also have built-in mechanisms to periodically be increased for inflation/cost-of-living increases. That has not happened for many years, so the min wage is far below where it should be adjusted for inflation in most states.

One thing to note is the OP's post is written with the assumption that we must change things. It's not a binary choice between raising it or abolishing it, in fact keeping it as-is is the default choice. Not a big deal in this case, but it is a good example of how sometimes a topic can be 'loaded'.

[Edge-]

AB5 was a union push. Its goal was to destroy the 1099 gig economy in California to try to create union jobs to replace them. That attempt resulted in voter backlash, with Californians voting for prop 22 to protect 1099 jobs for rideshare employees. If the public truly wanted unions, they would have voted no on prop 22.

This post sponsored by Uber, Grubhub, Lyft, and every other gig company exploiting their workers.

Because it's about as accurate as their propaganda scripts. Though you being painfully wrong on yet another topic is par for the course.

[D3thray]

Yes. As it is written Minimum Wage is bullshit, it's another feel good meaningless issues politicians can campaign on that does nothing. The problem is that all Jobs should pay the affordable cost of living where ever they are located period. It should be based on a % median income of an area. Some Places $15 is too much and others it isn't enough.

I mean around here minimum wage is still technically $7.25 but we still can’t find people for entry level positions at $17/hr plus benefits.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I mean around here minimum wage is still technically $7.25 but we still can’t find people for entry level positions at $17/hr plus benefits.

Where do you live? Because that might have a lot to do with it, especially since we are still bouncing back from a pandemic a lot of people ate still recovering from the Pandemic people seem to gloss over the fact 600,000+ people died, I know people who died before the vaccine was available and at that time funeral arrangements were backed up.

Brings serious perspective on risk vs compensation.

[GreenJesus]

Minimum wage needs to be set to CPI increases. $15 is cool and all, but they need to ensure just doesn't just stop at $15 for another 20 years. If it grows by 3% every year there won't be a huge aversion to bumping it uo 2-3x whenever they get around to it again decades later.

Every business should be budgeting for 3% wage increases anyway.

[Endus]

Minimum wage needs to be set to CPI increases. $15 is cool and all, but they need to ensure just doesn't just stop at $15 for another 20 years. If it grows by 3% every year there won't be a huge aversion to bumping it uo 2-3x whenever they get around to it again decades later.

If we're honest, $15 was a minimum expectation based on an analysis from 2012, so it's already out of date and it should be more like $18 to hit the same minimum standards.

This is a tactic; a number gets locked in, they contest it and hold it up until years down the line, and when it's finally passed it does nothing to improve the minimum wage, it just continues the same shitshow for a new generation.

[Shadowferal]

I mean around here minimum wage is still technically $7.25 but we still can’t find people for entry level positions at $17/hr plus benefits.

Yep. I personally look at inflation. Adjusted, employers need to offer $20+/hr. 15 conjures images of stealing bread and milk.

Job openings reach historic high of almost 11 million. Why are 9 million still jobless?

American businesses are hiring — and at historic rates, with almost 11 million job openings in July, according to the latest government data. Yet more than 9 million people were collecting enhanced unemployment benefits as of the Labor Day cutoff of those pandemic benefits, an apparent disconnect that has roiled lawmakers, policy experts and business owners.

It all boils dow to this: If there are more job openings than unemployed workers, why aren't more people coming off unemployment aid? And why are businesses struggling to find employees to wait tables, take orders and drive buses? The number of job openings in the U.S. surged to a historic high of 10.9 million at the end of July, up from 10.2 million in June, according to Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) data released by the Department of Labor on Wednesday.

Many business owners and dozens of Republican governors have blamed enhanced unemployment benefits for keeping workers on the sidelines. In their view, too many unemployed workers opted to collect an extra $300 in weekly jobless aid rather than find work, which prompted 25 GOP-led states to cut jobless aid early in an effort to spur job growth by pushing workers off unemployment support.

Yet that hasn't happened, with several economic studies finding the states that curtailed pandemic jobless aid early didn't experience stronger job growth than those that maintained the aid until Labor Day weekend, when the federal benefits expired. That suggests other factors are at work besides unemployment aid, with economists pointing to a complicated mix of shifting priorities for workers and concerns about rising COVID-19 infection rates as the highly contagious Delta variant spreads across the nation.

"The big factor for most job seekers is still the pandemic," noted Nick Bunker, Indeed Hiring Lab director of research. "Concern about the coronavirus will make people less willing to immediately jump into a job than they have in the past."

[cuafpr]

If unions could be trust maybe... I still remember applying for a job and being told the union would take 30% of my pay for the first 2-3 years then go down for required membership dues.. I also had no choice if I wanted the job I had to join the union. My dad also hated the union that he was forced into.

as for min wage yes states can already control it, hell cities can control it. The US has too many variations in the cost of living to have one federal living wage for the entire country. Do you base it off NYC? then people in Iowa are gonna be living the good life not just a living wage. Base the living wage on Ames IA, then people in NYC are living on the streets. Some cities states are finally starting to do what they should do and raise the wages for their area.

[Zan15]

To some degree the market will set the minimum wage for an area. And one indirect benefit from the pandemic has been that many workers are no longer willing to accept below-market wages. I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised that loyal employees that were quickly laid off to save money by their employers as soon as the pandemic hit, aren't running back to the same employers over a year later that want to hire them back at minimum wage.

Why minimum wage is needed and comes into play is still the main reason it was put in place initially. That reason is especially in more rural areas with fewer employers, employers can kind of monopolize the workforce and exploit them by underpaying wages since there are no/few other places to work in many cases. It makes headlines like it is new but urban McDonald's have been paying $15/hour for many years already for that reason, because they have competition. The issue is that a McDonald's restaurant in a smaller town will pay $8/hour because they can get away with it. They aren't charging 1/2 for a value meal in those areas, it's purely exploiting those workers for more profit. So that is why it is definitely needed, and should also have built-in mechanisms to periodically be increased for inflation/cost-of-living increases. That has not happened for many years, so the min wage is far below where it should be adjusted for inflation in most states.

One thing to note is the OP's post is written with the assumption that we must change things. It's not a binary choice between raising it or abolishing it, in fact keeping it as-is is the default choice. Not a big deal in this case, but it is a good example of how sometimes a topic can be 'loaded'.

yah the mcdonalds in the non urban area's in my state pay less and charge WAY more for food than the urban ones. They also never have the national deals the urban ones have like 2 big macs for 5 dollars.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean around here minimum wage is still technically $7.25 but we still can’t find people for entry level positions at $17/hr plus benefits.

around here entry level positions at walmart start at 15.50 and overnights stocking pays 17.50. this was before the $1 dollar bump was announced.

every walmart around the central part of the state has these hiring signs posted all over the store.

Of course then you go to apply for the job and they tell you they will not give you more than 20-25 hours, you don't get much in the way of benefits because your hours are so low and the ones you get are so much less value then the ones full time employees get.

They are still having massive hiring problems because a lot of companies are still playing games.
A lot of places are still SHITTY to work at. they can fix the salary/benefit problem but it the corporate / business culture is shit who's going to work there?

[Raeph]

IMO, abolishing it and letting unions negotiate forth collective agreements is the best, else companies will always seek to keep low-wage jobs at minimum wage level.

We don't have minimum wage in my country, and even the lowest paying job makes like 500 dollars more than what burger flippers and waitresses earn in average in the U.S. We pay more taxes, but even with taxes included they still earn like 3-400 dollars more. That's because unions have fought and negotiated for these wages, and companies not having the ability to look at the lowest legal amount they can pay and still get away with it.

I would be in favor of a (much higher) minimum wage personally, but then couple it with means-tested UBI to support people who are blocked form the labor force because of low education and skills mismatch.

This will do three things:
1) Make companies pay people enough to make it worth working, rather than being slaved to a job just to survive.
2) As people will have a floor for income they would then have higher employment mobility so menial/dangerous jobs will eventually be priced out the market and replaced by automation or the compensation for human work will match the danger involved.
3)Change working from a necessity into a social responsibility where you are encouraged to train yourself to have the skills to be fully involved in society.

I personally would like nothing better than all no-skilled labor to be abolished in favor of giving avenues to people to gain skills training, degree or certificate programs, so that skilled and credentialed labor are the only jobs available in the USA.

If you don't want to/can't/or won't get that training then just live of UBI.

[Endus]

I would be in favor of a (much higher) minimum wage personally, but then couple it with means-tested UBI to support people who are blocked form the labor force because of low education and skills mismatch.

This will do three things:
1) Make companies pay people enough to make it worth working, rather than being slaved to a job just to survive.
2) As people will have a floor for income they would then have higher employment mobility so menial/dangerous jobs will eventually be priced out the market and replaced by automation or the compensation for human work will match the danger involved.
3)Change working from a necessity into a social responsibility where you are encouraged to train yourself to have the skills to be fully involved in society.

I personally would like nothing better than all no-skilled labor to be abolished in favor of giving avenues to people to gain skills training, degree or certificate programs, so that skilled and credentialed labor are the only jobs available in the USA.

If you don't want to/can't/or won't get that training then just live of UBI.

This adds complexity that you may find is unnecessary; you need to track when people are or aren't working, to determine eligibility for UBI, and enforce the wage laws as well. And the gain for working is only, really, whatever the difference between the UBI stipend and your minimum wage is set at.

You could just end-run around all of that by making the UBI condition-free, even if you're working, and removing all minimum wage laws. If someone wants to offer you $0.50/hour, and you agree, that's fine; you're already covered by the UBI. If you can't get anyone to take that little, you'd have to offer more; people have the capacity to just refuse shitty pay because the UBI protects them from the usual hardship the labor market relies on to suppress wages. At that point, market forces can actually work in determining where wages should be at.

All with a lot less government oversight and monitoring. All the government really needs to handle here is the broad eligibility criteria for UBI, which boil down to "identify yourself as a citizen", and "you're not dead", and you're done. The only need to update this would be on death. Even if you graduated it based on age (more for kids than seniors), that can be automatically worked out from date of birth. Beyond that, it's just "what's your banking info", and there's your money every month.

One of the massive gains with UBI is the reduction of complexity within the government. It takes way less oversight, compared to programs where your eligibility has to be monitored constantly to forestall fraud. Leaning into that advantage is, IMO, the better way to go.

[D3thray]

This adds complexity that you may find is unnecessary; you need to track when people are or aren't working, to determine eligibility for UBI, and enforce the wage laws as well. And the gain for working is only, really, whatever the difference between the UBI stipend and your minimum wage is set at.

You could just end-run around all of that by making the UBI condition-free, even if you're working, and removing all minimum wage laws. If someone wants to offer you $0.50/hour, and you agree, that's fine; you're already covered by the UBI. If you can't get anyone to take that little, you'd have to offer more; people have the capacity to just refuse shitty pay because the UBI protects them from the usual hardship the labor market relies on to suppress wages. At that point, market forces can actually work in determining where wages should be at.

All with a lot less government oversight and monitoring. All the government really needs to handle here is the broad eligibility criteria for UBI, which boil down to "identify yourself as a citizen", and "you're not dead", and you're done. The only need to update this would be on death. Even if you graduated it based on age (more for kids than seniors), that can be automatically worked out from date of birth. Beyond that, it's just "what's your banking info", and there's your money every month.

One of the massive gains with UBI is the reduction of complexity within the government. It takes way less oversight, compared to programs where your eligibility has to be monitored constantly to forestall fraud. Leaning into that advantage is, IMO, the better way to go.

Pretty much the only scenario under which I like UBI if it eliminates and replaces most or all other social programs like SNAP etc.

[Raeph]

This adds complexity that you may find is unnecessary; you need to track when people are or aren't working, to determine eligibility for UBI, and enforce the wage laws as well. And the gain for working is only, really, whatever the difference between the UBI stipend and your minimum wage is set at.

You could just end-run around all of that by making the UBI condition-free, even if you're working, and removing all minimum wage laws. If someone wants to offer you $0.50/hour, and you agree, that's fine; you're already covered by the UBI. If you can't get anyone to take that little, you'd have to offer more; people have the capacity to just refuse shitty pay because the UBI protects them from the usual hardship the labor market relies on to suppress wages. At that point, market forces can actually work in determining where wages should be at.

All with a lot less government oversight and monitoring. All the government really needs to handle here is the broad eligibility criteria for UBI, which boil down to "identify yourself as a citizen", and "you're not dead", and you're done. The only need to update this would be on death. Even if you graduated it based on age (more for kids than seniors), that can be automatically worked out from date of birth. Beyond that, it's just "what's your banking info", and there's your money every month.

One of the massive gains with UBI is the reduction of complexity within the government. It takes way less oversight, compared to programs where your eligibility has to be monitored constantly to forestall fraud. Leaning into that advantage is, IMO, the better way to go.

I would agree that it would make it better in your version, I just don't think that Congress or the Executive Branch would let something like UBI get passed without some kinds of hoops to jump through, and my suggestion is with that expectation.

To say nothing of the various different special interest groups that would be shouting out for exceptions and restrictions to any benefit of this kind.

I do have one issue with your suggestion though, in that the government basically becomes the primary payer for employment, rather than those who need to pay for those employee hours of work. Personally I think that it is fine for the government to be there as a safety-net and backstop in the event of or to prevent a market failure, but to take over the market entirely seems a step too far.

UBI seems to be a good way to resolve the issue of a market failure, which is that current public school education doesn't adequately prepare residents and citizens to be functional members of the labor pool, as well as the issue that companies have come to a place where they will no longer commit to on the job training, instead demanding fully trained and experienced workers from that labor pool. If that is going to be the new normal, which it seems to be since the Great Recession at least, then we have to expect that a sizable portion of the population will enter the job market and be unemployable entirely or they will be underemployed until they can gain skills necessary to enter the market as fully marketable.

It seems to be fine for society to pay for underfunding education and to also pay for allowing employers choose not to invest in their employees, but a universal version of UBI seems a step to far since we as a society shouldn't need to pay a UBI to high earners. Means tested for me doesn't mean the nonsense that some Red states have done with Medicaid (like I think it was Arkansas that their income cut off was like 36% of poverty line) but more like 100% of benefit at 250% of poverty line, increase to the benefit at lower than that mark, but a slow decline in the benefit above it wit the zero cut off at 400-600% depending on numbers. 400% would be 51500 a year for a single person, 600% would be 77250 a year for a single person.

Means tested for me doesn't mean "we need to make sure no one uses it", it means more "those who can pay their way should".

Granted I do see where the "universal benefit" argument comes from, and it does have some solid points.

[Twdft]

, but a universal version of UBI seems a step to far since we as a society shouldn't need to pay a UBI to high earners.

If you give UBI (universal means exactly that btw) to everyone companies will adjust wages for high earners in a millisecond. And if they go down too much high earners can too say yeah well find someone else for that I'll be at home looking for another employer knowing that my basic needs are covered.

That's the power of UBI, it gives every citizen the freedom corporations now enjoy: to say fuck it I'll find someone else. I'm sure employers will increase working conditions and pay pretty fast when confronted with UBI. They could do so today but since they have an ocean of people whose alternative to taking shitty paid jobs is to starve they don't.

[Forogil]

If you give UBI (universal means exactly that btw) to everyone companies will adjust wages for high earners in a millisecond.

No, they will not. Wages are generally sticky and don't quickly go down.
Whether they go down in the long run is less clear.

And there's also another large caveat: UBI is costly, the most obvious way of paying for it is taxing the high earners, which will mean that their wages will instead go up to compensate (and that may happen in a milli-second; wages are seen as more sticky on the way down) - and/or they will move elsewhere.

The difference in stickiness and short-sightedness of politicians will likely mean that the tax increase doesn't match the UBI for high earners in time, and if the high earners play their cards right they will be compensated for the tax increase - without negative compensation for the UBI.

That's the power of UBI, it gives every citizen the freedom corporations now enjoy: to say fuck it I'll find someone else. I'm sure employers will increase working conditions and pay pretty fast when confronted with UBI. They could do so today but since they have an ocean of people whose alternative to taking shitty paid jobs is to starve they don't.

Possibly, but your framing of the statement is incorrect.

You mix "employers" and "corporations" as if they are the same. However, the goal of corporations is to produce services or goods; they are only employers because the employees help in achieving that - if they can produce the same items using outsourcing and automation they will do that instead. Some might also fold if they cannot find workers - which isn't necessarily a problem.