I think it’s wild that the increase has to be legislated each time, why not just give the responsibility of increasing it each year to a government agency which needs to follow legislation to set it (based on XYZ metrics)? This is how it’s done in many other countries.
Too practical and goal oriented.
The fact that this number $7.25 exists anywhere regarding wages (local, state, federal) is mind boggling.
The federal government really did just give up on any actual changing of minimum wages and it’s very insane that that is the case.
Nope. They said no to $15… so it doubles to $30 an hour now. Say no again shitters
You say “should” like we don’t keep electing all the politicians who don’t give a crap about wages.
I wish I knew the answer to this, but I don’t think a dollar amount floor on labor in fiat currency is it. That’ll just find a new equilibrium in a devalued currency.
I don’t write this because I disagree with the sentiment. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment.
But wealth isn’t about dollars. It’s about assets. For day to day living, it’s about real estate.
I just wrote out a whole bunch of thoughts but I don’t think they’re applicable to the topic.
Maybe do things like:
Unoccupied residential real estate is taxed at some obscene percentage of assessed value.
No individual may own more than ten living spaces (apartments are a need, and somebody’s got to own them)
Entities (looking at you black rock) may not own residential real estate.
REITS are absolutely off the table.
Water is a public good and Nestle can get fucked
Student debt and medical debt are capped at some percentage of income formula.
And to get really crazy, instead of minimum wage, employers must demonstrate that employees can afford two bedrooms with no more than twenty five percent of gross wages.
I’m drinking beer and watching rich people ride horses. These are casual thoughts without citation and are not intended for academic review or criticism.
And to get really crazy, instead of minimum wage, employers must demonstrate that employees can afford two bedrooms with no more than twenty five percent of gross wages.
Stuff like that always backfires. You lose the businesses altogether, now nobodies got nothing.
I believe the standard counter to that is that if you can’t meet that standard then you either shouldn’t have employees or you shouldn’t have a business
That’s a brain dead retort, utilized by people that don’t think, just repeat ideas they heard elsewhere and barely understand. Note, I ain’t saying that to you in particular. Brings to mind the rent controlled buildings standing vacant in NY, because it’s below input/maintenance to rent out.
Minimum wage shouldn’t be a dollar amount, it should be a living amount defined in a reasonable and realistic way. (Probably should be region dependent, too?)
States do have their own minimums. Washington State for example, is tied to the federal Consumer Price Index and it’s at $16.28…
Minimum wage in 1938: 25¢/hour.
Minimum wage in 2024: $7.25/hour.
In 86 years the US federal minimum wage has gone up seven dollars.
Inflation adjusted, that’s $5.54 vs $7.25. That’s a 30% increase, on top of triple or quadruple digit increases in every expense…
What is even crazier is that while the minimum is not tied to inflation the amount one may donate to political parties is tied to inflation.
Huh.
You do realize that if that were done, there would be a mass layoff, right? Because minimum wage is a price control. And so if most companies don’t think that workers are worth $24 per hour, they will just lay them off instead and give them zero dollars per hour. If you’d like an example, look at California fast food workers right about now.
Edit: I think it should be raised, but that would be far too much.
Why can’t they pay CEOs or C-suite execs less to compensate?
Then there wouldn’t be as many CEOs or C-suite executives 😢
Right now I’m making a bit more than $24/hour and live in a low cost of living, rural area. I’m fortunate enough to have been blessed with inherited money after my father’s passing and now have a paid off house and vehicle. My living expenses are low to say the least. I have ZERO debt, I invest 15% of my income and put 10% into savings, 25% goes towards “wants” and the rest goes to bills.
All of that said, there is absolutely NO WAY I would be able to save/invest/spend the percentages I do if I had to pay rent, or a mortgage, and a car payment on top of that. If I had kids it would be even worse. I literally cannot even imagine if I had to pay for a kid right now and I’m in a good spot financially speaking. I would be BARELY scraping by at my pay rate (reminder: I’m in a low cost of living rural area).
How can you POSSIBLY think $24/hr is too much money???
Because tons of workers are losing their jobs in California because of a twenty-hour minimum wage. If it was twenty-four, it would be even worse. That is a three-and-a-half times increase from what it is currently. As I said, it should go up, but it should not go up that much. Double it to $15.5 maybe. Most places i am aware of pay around that so it shouldnt spark a mass layoff.
I promise you the companies that are now forced to pay $20/hr are more than capable of doing so. They’re only laying off people in protest; it’s purely for show. They must have at least 60 locations nationwide and be considered “fast food”. These companies aren’t broke. Starbucks for example, which just closed 7 stores in protest had a net income of $4.125 billion in 2023
