Why $15 an Hour Should be the Absolute Minimum Minimum Wage

nhboy

Ubi bene ibi patria
" There are many important issues on the national political table right now, but sometime soon, fixing the federal minimum wage should be there too. Of course, the politics of reform don’t look good, but there is a Congressional election coming next year, and we need to be sure that voters understand that almost every Republican in Congress (some Democrats too), and the self-proclaimed workers’ champion in the White House don’t think people deserve a helping hand to get a living wage. The current federal minimum wage, $7.25 an hour, is a disgrace. Even $10 an hour yields only $20,800 for year-round, full-time work. That’s below the extra-low American poverty line for a family. Even for an individual living alone, it would not be enough in most American cities.

But how high a wage should we push for in the long run? Of course, $15 an hour is a great starting point and courageous workers and local politicians have succeeded in getting a $15 minimum or something like it in quite a few states and cities. Two years ago, 42% of American workers were earning less than $15 an hour, so movements that are winning a $15 minimum in states and cities are helping millions and millions of workers. But workers in other states and cities need federal help. Getting a $15 national minimum wage would be a tremendous victory. But just the beginning. In the not-so-long run, $15 an hour won’t be enough. That’s because $15, while a huge advance for millions of workers, yields only $31,000 before taxes for a full year of full-time work. And many low-wage workers do not work full-time[SUP]. "

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/27/why-15-an-hour-should-be-the-absolute-minimum-minimum-wage/
[/SUP]
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
" There are many important issues on the national political table right now, but sometime soon, fixing the federal minimum wage should be there too. Of course, the politics of reform don’t look good, but there is a Congressional election coming next year, and we need to be sure that voters understand that almost every Republican in Congress (some Democrats too), and the self-proclaimed workers’ champion in the White House don’t think people deserve a helping hand to get a living wage. The current federal minimum wage, $7.25 an hour, is a disgrace. Even $10 an hour yields only $20,800 for year-round, full-time work. That’s below the extra-low American poverty line for a family. Even for an individual living alone, it would not be enough in most American cities.

But how high a wage should we push for in the long run? Of course, $15 an hour is a great starting point and courageous workers and local politicians have succeeded in getting a $15 minimum or something like it in quite a few states and cities. Two years ago, 42% of American workers were earning less than $15 an hour, so movements that are winning a $15 minimum in states and cities are helping millions and millions of workers. But workers in other states and cities need federal help. Getting a $15 national minimum wage would be a tremendous victory. But just the beginning. In the not-so-long run, $15 an hour won’t be enough. That’s because $15, while a huge advance for millions of workers, yields only $31,000 before taxes for a full year of full-time work. And many low-wage workers do not work full-time[SUP]. "

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/27/why-15-an-hour-should-be-the-absolute-minimum-minimum-wage/
[/SUP]

And a year from now the raise is gone and they will need $20.00.
It's just part of the inflationary spiral.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
I think we should make minimum wage $250,000 per year.


Then everybody would be rich!

They'd not be rich but you could sure make a good case for paying for all of your own wants and needs and get gummint out of everything from health to retirement to food, clothing and shelter.
 

Toxick

Splat
They'd not be rich but you could sure make a good case for paying for all of your own wants and needs and get gummint out of everything from health to retirement to food, clothing and shelter.



You could also make a good case that the only real lasting effect that such a bone-headed policy would have, is that all of us losers sandwiched between the super-rich and the poor would have our buying power irreparably slashed.



And I thought my sarcasm was palpable in that post.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
You could also make a good case that the only real lasting effect that such a bone-headed policy would have, is that all of us losers sandwiched between the super-rich and the poor would have our buying power irreparably slashed.



And I thought my sarcasm was palpable in that post.

You'd not trade a much higher basic income for virtually elimination of government welfare?
 

Toxick

Splat
You'd not trade a much higher basic income for virtually elimination of government welfare?

I would not.



It may be a fine point, however I think there is a difference between rewarding sloth and ignorance, and punishing work and education.
Rewarding incompetence, laziness and stupidity is marginally less evil that actively punishing achievement.

Truthfully, I'd rather live in a straight meritocracy where, if you suck at life, then it sucks to be you.

Unfortunately I don't think any more of those exist on this rapidly decaying planet. If there were, I would go there with my children post haste.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
I would not.



It may be a fine point, however I think there is a difference between rewarding sloth and ignorance, and punishing work and education.
Rewarding incompetence, laziness and stupidity is marginally less evil that actively punishing achievement.

Truthfully, I'd rather live in a straight meritocracy where, if you suck at life, then it sucks to be you.

Unfortunately I don't think any more of those exist on this rapidly decaying planet. If there were, I would go there with my children post haste.

Nailed it.
 
You'd not trade a much higher basic income for virtually elimination of government welfare?
But your utopia is based on costs staying pretty much the same. That will not happen.

Total wages for an employee is the multiplied by a percentage to determine the cost of workman's comp per employee, the employee' SS and Medicaid contributions and also the mandatory minimum amount that must be paid into a company's retirement plan per employee. (This I know because I have a small business with 1 employee and when we set up a retirement plan for the sole proprietor (owner) we learned that it is federal law to include all full time employees (those working 1000 hours per year or more) for that payroll year.

All of the above adds up and that will drive up the cost of doing business and will be pushed to the consumer. $15 an hour will no longer buy you what you assume it will.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
But your utopia is based on costs staying pretty much the same. That will not happen.

Total wages for an employee is the multiplied by a percentage to determine the cost of workman's comp per employee, the employee' SS and Medicaid contributions and also the mandatory minimum amount that must be paid into a company's retirement plan per employee. (This I know because I have a small business with 1 employee and when we set up a retirement plan for the sole proprietor (owner) we learned that it is federal law to include all full time employees (those working 1000 hours per year or more) for that payroll year.

All of the above adds up and that will drive up the cost of doing business and will be pushed to the consumer. $15 an hour will no longer buy you what you assume it will.

I've tried to explain this with the universal wage as well. If you give everyone something, or increase the minimum for working to some arbitrary number that works nowhere near the same in Eagle River WI as it does in NYC, all you do is make the cost of being poor much higher. The same slums will exist with the same people living in them, and the same middle class will be the same middle class (because their wages will necessarily rise because the $13/hour person last week isn't going to just sit there at $15/hour when she WAS making almost twice the minimum wage, so now she'll need $25/hour), but it WILL increase tax rates (unless those change with the income as well), and you'll just end up with the status quo of today at a higher cost of living in actual dollars. The dollar will substantially decrease in value, in other words.

Recall the milk analogy - a gallon of milk costs a hypothetical dollar. A worker makes $2, taxed at 20%, and therefore has enough for the milk and $0.60 left over. Have the worker now earn $15, and the worker has a bunch left over, right? No. To meet the payroll, the farmer/grocer must now charge $11.50 for a gallon of milk. All good, because at 20% taxes, the $15 pay is good to buy $12, right? No, now that the pay is higher, the tax rate is 26% gives the worker a buying power of $11.10 - too little for the milk, and nothing left over.

Yeah, raising the minimum wage is SUCH a good idea :sarcasm:
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
But your utopia is based on costs staying pretty much the same. That will not happen.

Total wages for an employee is the multiplied by a percentage to determine the cost of workman's comp per employee, the employee' SS and Medicaid contributions and also the mandatory minimum amount that must be paid into a company's retirement plan per employee. (This I know because I have a small business with 1 employee and when we set up a retirement plan for the sole proprietor (owner) we learned that it is federal law to include all full time employees (those working 1000 hours per year or more) for that payroll year.

All of the above adds up and that will drive up the cost of doing business and will be pushed to the consumer. $15 an hour will no longer buy you what you assume it will.

I would eliminate the minimum wage for employers, I've said that many times.
 
I would eliminate the minimum wage for employers, I've said that many times.
Now you've confused me... the employer's are the ones required to pay no less than minimum wage. A sole proprietor is not required to pay themselves anything.

Everything I was put in my post was specific to the increase in overhead costs per employee beyond the additional forced salary increase.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Now you've confused me... the employer's are the ones required to pay no less than minimum wage. A sole proprietor is not required to pay themselves anything.

Everything I was put in my post was specific to the increase in overhead costs per employee beyond the additional forced salary increase.

I understand.

My point has long been that requiring employers to pay a minimum wage is the wrong way to go about it. Too many variables, too hard on the employer.

Society wants a minimum wage or income? Provide it.
 
Top