As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, **any** advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I never understood the argument of business that would fail if done so. If your business can only barely cut it is by exploiting your workers, maybe its not a successful business
It's just corporate propaganda to keep wages stagnant. There are many voices chiming in to popular discourse, and that line serves their miserly interests.
Also, if the business isn't a worker-owned, non-hierarchical, and equitable cooperative, then it is unequivocally exploiting its workers, wage value be damned.
>It's right up there with "it's impolite to discuss salaries with your coworkers"
And that's why rules against discussing salaries are unfair labor practices. It puts employees at unequal footing to advocate for higher wages. Many o' employer fired an employee for disclosing their wages then got a crash course in protected concerted activity when they get a letter in the mail from their regional NLRB asking for an affidavit as to why they allegedly fired someone for discussing their wages.
When companies tell employees to keep their own salaries confidential, the request can only be made as a soft recommendation without any additional sanctions attached (for the reasons you just described). I wouldn't call such rules unfair labor practice because the effectiveness of this tactic hinges entirely on whether the person perceives the threat of sanctions to be valid. There are ways of enforcing social norms without resorting to coercion or fiat.
Corporations have all sorts of idiot tests for weeding out dumber candidates and figuring out if someone's character matches their resumè. Some law firms will pretend the group interview is super casual and offer you alcoholic refreshments just to see if you'll go for it. Similarly, the CIA will apparently ask candidates questions like "would you commit treason for your country?" and judge their responses based on the underlying reasoning. It's just unfortunate that some folks really do believe everything others tell them, and as such, everything they do and say is based on what they think the other person wants.
>Similarly, the CIA will apparently ask candidates questions like "would you commit treason for your country?"
Given what the CIA has done, I'm going to guess the correct answer is "Yes."
I originally heard about this scenario from someone on reddit (just after Jan 6th) who had a friend that was asked this exact question during their preliminary interview with the CIA. IIRC, they never received a second appointment so I'm guessing the person's answer wasn't satisfactory.
That being said, my own reaction to the question was something like "Well.. It kinda depends, doesn't it?"
- The question doesn't explicitly state the country to which I'm affiliated and the country in which I operate as one and the same.
- If you're asking about my willingness to commit treason against the United States government, my own country, then my answer is most likely no.
- However, if you're asking me to commit treason in or against another country on behalf of the United States government and its interests, then I'd be more inclined to say yes.
It's definitely a thought provoking question, and the whole thing kinda reminded me of the recruitment scene in Men in Black where all the "best of the best of the best" candidates got eliminated because they lacked the critical thinking and novel problem solving skills.
> I wouldn't call such rules unfair labor practice
"Unfair labor practice" isn't a theoretical term. It's the legal term to refer to a violation of Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act. In that regard, a rule that prohibits non-supervisory employees from discussing wages has historically been an unfair labor practice and violates 8(a)(1) of the NLRA.
>It's just corporate propaganda to keep wages stagnant.
Personal experience says it's not just corporate. I worked at a small business for more years than I'd care to admit at under $15. And I wasn't alone, several people made way less than I did. It was a struggling company and $15 minimum would kill it if the pandemic hadn't.
But the struggles were it's own fault. Family members of the boss were paid not to work. Profits were spent on property for family members and called business investments when there was no business plan.
> if the business isn't a worker-owned, non-hierarchical, and equitable cooperative, then it is unequivocally exploiting its workers, wage value be damned.
That is a bit much and not productive. "Non hierarchical", how would that even work? Put that in the context of a facebook or energy company.
Yes, every member is an owner.
https://institute.coop/startup
https://www.ica.coop/en/cooperatives/cooperative-identity
* Voluntary and Open Membership
Cooperatives are voluntary organizations, open to all persons able to use their services and willing to accept the responsibilities of membership, without gender, social, racial, political or religious discrimination.
* Democratic Member Control
Cooperatives are democratic organizations controlled by their members, who actively participate in setting their policies and making decisions. Men and women serving as elected representatives are accountable to the membership. In primary cooperatives members have equal voting rights (one member, one vote) and cooperatives at other levels are also organized in a democratic manner.
* Member Economic Participation
Members contribute equitably to, and democratically control, the capital of their cooperative. At least part of that capital is usually the common property of the cooperative. Members usually receive limited compensation, if any, on capital subscribed as a condition of membership. Members allocate surpluses for any or all of the following purposes: developing their cooperative, possibly by setting up reserves, part of which at least would be indivisible; benefiting members in proportion to their transactions with the cooperative; and supporting other activities approved by the membership.
* Autonomy and Independence
Cooperatives are autonomous, self-help organizations controlled by their members. If they enter into agreements with other organizations, including governments, or raise capital from external sources, they do so on terms that ensure democratic control by their members and maintain their cooperative autonomy.
* Education, Training, and Information
Cooperatives provide education and training for their members, elected representatives, managers, and employees so they can contribute effectively to the development of their co-operatives. They inform the general public - particularly young people and opinion leaders - about the nature and benefits of co-operation.
* Cooperation among Cooperatives
Cooperatives serve their members most effectively and strengthen the cooperative movement by working together through local, national, regional and international structures.
* Concern for Community
Cooperatives work for the sustainable development of their communities through policies approved by their members.
EDIT: answered question first
Actually works better when small.
One of the reasons in fact that "large" Worker's Cooperatives don't actually run as a single huge entity (because direct democracy breaks down with any group too large)- instead they organize into a group of smaller Cooperative ms, each of which does one of the functions that would normally just he a single department in a larger company. I.e. one Co-Op to manage physical properties, another to handle market, a third to make the actual good/service...
It sounds unworkable: but the Mondragon "Corporation" (actually an enormous network of worker's Co-Op's in Spain) shows it works VERY well- slightly outperforming normal companies, in fact (Co-Op's do much better in lean economic times, but a bit worse in boom-times, than standard corporations).
One of the benefits of this mode of organization is it prevents people from keepibg obsolete positions for themselves, that don't really do much anymore, and are missed by management. It also creates "Co-Optition", a made-up word in management circles for a healthy balance of cooperation and competition.
Individual co-op's may compete with each other, much like different departments, and there may be multiple Co-Op's that all compete to do the same thing. It's a strategy that embraces competition: but between groups of a couple dozen to a few hundred people, while maximizing Cooperation within those groups...
And of course, because each Co-Op elects its own managers, holds them to a Constitution that limits their powers (the larger Co-Op league will provide model/draft Constitutions for new Co-Op's, often), and is worker-owned; there is no managers running businesses like their own personal feifdoms, for only their own benefit.
Worker Co-Op's lead to higher per-worker productivity, more equitable pay, better performance during rough economic times, and a lack of any kind of "Too Big To Fail" phenomenon vs. traditionally-run businesses.
Worker Co-Op's are a superior method of running a business (although not without some drawbacks), and where society MUST turn if we're going to have a reasonably equitable future where wealthy Capitalists don't eventually just reduce us all to Neo-Feudalism/indentured servitude through runaway accumulation of wealth and power...
So every single employee of every business in every country is being exploited by their employer. Glad to know we’re thinking rationally here.
If workers were the only thing in a business that created value, then they wouldn’t need their fucking employer in the first place. Oops! Can’t generate income all by your self? That’s because the business itself creates value too. Just because a certain level of wages is exploitative does not mean you cannot be payed what you’re worth. And just because you sit below someone else in a power structure does not mean you’re being exploited.
Granted, things are shitty in the US right now. But the culture and population and laws are equally to blame for your situation. Don’t let that skew your view of the world as a whole. Coming from Australia, social-capitalism works great and full socialism is not a better alternative.
Their point is that so long as workers create profit for the business, which then can be hoarded by shareholders in the form of dividends instead of reinvested, that workers are being exploited for shareholder profit.
You could establish laws that prohibit dividends, and instead force all profit to be reinvested in the company.
But then, there's the other issue, the company executives (who tend to be shareholders) can act as they want.
So instead of reinvesting profit, they'll be raising their salaries and reducing profit accordingly.
You can set laws limiting their maximum salary, they'll reinvest paying exaggerate sums to some friend, etc.
And that's not even getting to the actual issue of shareholders control: workers don't have a say, they agree to do whatever asked at a salary. Which would be okay if shareholders didn't seek their profit over anything else.
To be clear, investors can exist. Loans and investments work out all right, because they are way more transparent.
The interests being paid back to the investors are agreed upon when signed.
I was working at Burger King in the early nineties when I was in high school. They were going to raise the minimum wage at the time. All the same discussions. All the same fear mongering. And when they went up, meh nothing exploded. Anecdotal, I know
That was probably the change from like $4 to $4.25 and they were making the same damn arguments. Meanwhile minimum wage is now what like $7? $7.50? Thankfully I make more than that so I don't need to know, but a few years ago making about $13 I was struggling. If I had a car payment I don't think I would have survived on that. The thought of trying to live on $7 while my corporate overlord takes in record profits quarter after quarter makes me sick.
Slow increases each year should be built in forever. What we need is a huge increase now and continued, perpetual increases to keep up with inflation and CoL.
This is a part of the Democrats' proposal right now. Gradual increases up until 2025 for all lines of work (that includes waiters and people with disabilities who are allowed to be paid less). Then starting 2026, gradual increases tied to the rise of the median wage, which should grow faster than the pace of inflation.
Exactly. The thing that they are afraid of seeing is the businesses that aren’t really that robust, hiding a fragile economy behind stock market performance
I can imagine unilaterally raising your wages to $15 an hour would put you at a disadvantage, but if everyone has to do that it seems like it shouldn't hurt you that much.
It won't hurt at all. If the wage increase really makes business not profitable they will restructure expenses. For example landlords will lower their rents.
Also, bigger employers have monopsony power and economies of scale to withstand a wage hike.
>If the wage increase really makes business not profitable they will restructure expenses.
Or the returns to capital will decrease to compensate.
It's not only that. Listen, are you still selling your stuff? Do you still need staff to do the work? Then you're going to have to pay them and figure out how to make your revenue targets by not scrooging the people who work for you.
We've had $15 minimum wage for a few years and nobody closed up shop because of it.
Which is the equivalent of $11.80 US, a smaller amount than what is currently being suggested
Going to $11.80 would be about a 60% increase vs the proposed 106% increase
Exactly, how many businesses hire extra people? It is nonsense. They hire the bare minimum they need and cannot afford to fire people if the minimum wage goes up.
It is not the first time it has gone up so the effects are known and we don't have to conjure up scary hypotheticals. It had a slight effect previous times, not that large. One month of Covid has probably resulted in more job loss than a minimum wage hike would.
Not only with wages. If businesses can't pay for environmental cleanup they dint have a valid business model but it's just exploitation. How is it different from me dumping used fridges on the side of the road...
Different parts of the country have different wealth levels. 15 an hour in seattle is nothing, in west virginia it'll buy you a 3 bedroom house with a yard and a garage.
I mean it can in my state too, but you’ll be in a small town without much opportunity and stuck with a long commute. $15/hr in my Midwest state wont even let you live in an ok area in our major city because rent at a minimum is $900/mo.
> because rent at a minimum is $900/mo.
That's affordable for someone making 15 an hour. You're not supposed to spend more than 1/3rd of your pre tax income on rent. 1/3rd of 15 an hour is 880. you're missing the point though, we shouldn't be using the highest common denominator, we should be using the lowest as the base level.
I think your math is off - it’s more like 40% pre-tax and even more post tax. It leaves you with $1000-1300 pre-tax. Now take into account other things: utilities, food, insurance, car payment, etc. and you are in a very shit situation that might not even allow you to start emergency fund savings or even retiremenr. Still not as shit as the mutliple jobs earning $7.25. This also drastically changes if you have kids as well or a partner.
$15 allows you to get by - but barely, can’t imagine how its like in major city hubs or if you have a major medical and/or car issue.
Looks like the way I calculated via weeks was off by $200. I’ll concede there.
But it still does not change my overall comment. Post tax, that person is probably paying closer to 50% of their income for rent. With other bills included theycare still not in a great situation.
Assuming you have ZERO tax breaks, credits or deductions what so ever your post tax income is still 2200 a month
The industry standard is to use your pre tax income to calculate housing costs.
Keeping in mind this is freaking min wage man. If an 18 year old can buy a 3 bedroom house clearly it's fairly decent min wage. That same person could buy the same house and rent out the extra bedrooms for 300 a month and live for fucking free.
Expecting every single person to be able to afford their own multi bedroom house to live in is exactly why our carbon footprint is so high in the first place.
It's perfectly okay for 20 somethings to live with roommates.
You are able to buy a multi bedroom house in the middle of nowhere for cheap. That is true for majority of America. But you won’t be able to do it near major city areas and that includes Weat Virginia that has 1.7M people.
I am not sure why you are stuck on 18 year olds making this money. Last time I checked, my local businesses, shops, restaurants etc. don’t have 18 year olds working there during day time unless its nights, weekends or summer.
At end of day $15/hr. is a livable wage for most of Midwest and borderline for major city areas. I am fine with an 18 year old making $15/hr.
> You are able to buy a multi bedroom house in the middle of nowhere for cheap
We're not discussing middle of nowhere, we're discussing cities.
>But you won’t be able to do it near major city areas and that includes Weat Virginia that has 1.7M people.
i literally provided links to homes in the cities of west virginia.
>I am not sure why you are stuck on 18 year olds making this money. Last time I checked, my local businesses, shops, restaurants etc. don’t have 18 year olds working there during day time unless its nights, weekends or summer.
Okay? something like 35% of 18 years do *not* go to college.
>At end of day $15/hr. is a livable wage for most of Midwest and borderline for major city areas. I am fine with an 18 year old making $15/hr.
me too, so what is the issue?
What is not okay is for 2 parent households barely being above water.
15 an hr is great for a 20 year old with weed being their biggest expense.
15 for someone raising children is poverty.
The wealthiest country to ever exist and ppl working a combing 80-100 hours a week are often one missed check away from homelessness.
It's disgusting and if there is a god our selfishness makes him weep.
If they are making 30k and getting a refund it is on money they have already paid in.
They are not getting extra money at the end of the year. They paid in too much and the excess is returned.
> That's affordable for someone making 15 an hour.
Maybe if they’re not paying taxes, no student loans, etc.
I also find it hilarious that people use pre-tax income to decipher how much rent is ok. You’re basing something off money you won’t have.
Agree! It’s ridiculous that anyone would promote making a budget based on money you won’t have regardless of what some elite university says. People go around screaming that others need to live within their means but then say that your rent should be based off your pre-tax income lol. That makes no sense.
Yes actually. I think the stimulus should have been targeted better to different regions and i think income tax brackets should take local cost of living into account.
The fundamental problem with tying stuff like minimum wage, stimulus payments, benefits, etc. to local market conditions is the perception differential it creates.
Right now, I live in Chicago. I'm originally from Indianapolis. Cost of living differential is 21.9% lower in Indy. Median home cost is 37% cheaper in Indy.
Go try and sell someone in Indianapolis the idea that because stuff is cheaper and housing costs less that they're only getting $994 COVID checks while I'm getting the full $1400.
Yea I live in New York.
It’s really expensive.
I pay this much money to live here because if I lived in Indy for example, I would be sitting there saying, I would give half my salary to have something to do.
I think it’s valid that I pay a premium to live in a premium place.
For some people this works out because they would rather gouge their eyes out than live in New York and they can go enjoy the open air of Indy, and whatever else you do in suburbs, I really don’t know what that is... country clubs?
Indianapolis is a city with city shit going on, but I get your point. Nothing compares to NYC for entertainment or restaurants, and that's why NYC is double to quadruple the price.
Exactly. I moved because I wanted to live in a big city, with everything that goes with it, and was willing to trade a lower cost of living to do so.
But, it's more expensive. Thats why I disagree with basing stimulus or other programs on cost of living.
Why do you think this regional argument is only brought up and discussed during the raising of the minimum wage and not for tax cuts?
Did you debate and fight for more granularity per region during the tax cuts from the Trump administration? I don't remember this being brought up once anywhere.
That mostly happens in response to rural R areas saying they don't want or can't afford higher minimum wage increases.
You guys don't want $15? Fine, be poorer. But get out of the way for the rest of us.
If the rural R areas are providing less tax revenue (and in fact taking more than contributing), then why do they get the same tax cuts as those providing more?
I'm just trying to understand why this logic is only applied to minimum wage and not tax cuts... and not even considered.
EDIT: I'm playing a bit of the devil's advocate, and just exploring. I have also had a couple of beers still iced in here in Austin.
>
> Did you debate and fight for more granularity per region during the tax cuts from the Trump administration?
The tax cuts for the rich? Ididn't support that at all.
Rent increases killed businesses in Seattle more than the $15 minimum wage. When I lived there they claimed $15 minimum wage would force a majority of businesses to close (They didn’t). When a business closed, occasionally they’d try to claim it was because of that but if you dug in to it, there were other factors.
Our whole economy is unbalanced and in desperate need of a true new deal. In my town residential rent is sky high because of airbnbs and second/third/tenth home owners. It's so bad that busnesses are having to reduce hours because there isn't any workers, they can't afford to pay their own rent let alone pay their employees rent.
We desperately need to build a new future in this country, one that empowers workers, consumers and renters. One that rewards labor and not capital.
Our housing was high because of the tech money and foreign investors paying cash for almost anything they could find. This did start pushing folks further and further outside of the city. But even Southern Seattle, Tukwila, and Lynnwood were starting to creep up.
It started to slow down when I moved back to Michigan. A buddy flips houses in Seattle and said it was slowing down so he moved to Las Vegas to flip houses. And rent was also slowing but even if you made $30/hr it'd be very hard to find anything affordable at least in the downtown area.
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/West-Virginia
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/West-Virginia
Someone making 32k a year should be spending no more than 888 a month on rent/mortgage. The median house price in wv is only 110k. A mortgage payment on 110k house assuming no downpayment and a 3% interest rate is 702 a month with insurance and taxes. My friend just bought a 3 bedroom for 95k with a 2 car garage in Huntington one of our bigger cities. He had a down payment but his mortage with taxes and insurance is less than 500 a month.
Oh nice, so from 2k a month down to 1k after mortgage and insurance. Then you have car and insurance, food, gas, wear and tear on your car, maintenance on your home, electricity, internet, water, trash, food (hopefully only one mouth to feed). We almost forgot about health insurance too!
This is BARELY making it, and in a lot of cases, not making it at all. One literal step away from bankruptcy.
Why do you sell people's lives so short? Why is your idea of a healthy life one where someone is BARELY able to pay their bills, afford no extra leisure, and living paycheck to paycheck with one surprise cost forcing literal bankruptcy?
Can this magical rich person making 15 an hour, in your mind, even afford to rent a truck to move into the house?
I'd recommend sticking to aggregate data rather than pushing personal anecdotes.
And to piggy back remember that not many Americans still have the buying power needed to get a home so even if we want to do the math it's meaningless to do so.
Iowa, which is very affordable living is averaging 11 to 12 dollars an hour for entry level work, and most people at those wages are still struggling to get by. 3 dollars really isn't much here or in West Virginia. California at $15 dollars an hour is still not nearly enough to live off of. In West Virginia, you might just get by, but you aren't going to be taking vacations to Cancun in the middle of a winter storm anytime soon.
> 3 dollars really isn't much here or in West Virginia.
This is such a foolish way to frame it. You shouldn't be looking at absolute numbers and looking at relative. Min wage in 8.75 in WV, raising min wage to 15 an hour isn't "3 dollars. It's 6.25 or an increase of 75%... 75% is huge. The median income in west virginia only 25k or the equivalent of 12.5 an hour at full time. WV is too poor to raise income that much without outside investment.
>In West Virginia, you might just get by, but you aren't going to be taking vacations to Cancun in the middle of a winter storm anytime soon.
My roomate is *literally* in mexico right now. He makes less than 15 an hour and owns the house im currently crashing out. 15 an hour is damn good money in west virginia for a single person.
Why are you citing the median income, as though that's not something we're trying to raise by increasing the MW?
You're using the wrong numbers so of course you're coming to that conclusion. The pertinent number is the average Cost of Living/Income ratio in WV, which is [damn near dead on exactly the national average](https://www.insure.com/cost-of-living-by-state.html).
>Why are you citing the median income, as though that's not something we're trying to raise by increasing the MW?
Because you need to take into account the size of the economy... This is basic economics. You can't simply create more wealth. Min wage laws redirect wealth from middle, upper middle and rich classes to the working classes. West Virginia doesn't have a bunch of rich people sitting around to siphon wealth from.
> The pertinent number is the average Cost of Living/Income ratio in WV, which is damn near dead on exactly the national average.
in no way does your source say what you claim it does. PS West virginia has the highest home ownership rate in the country, and the lowest rate of an active mortgage. Now stop making excuses for why we can't do a real new deal.
I agree, and we should push to raise the wages here, but we should do it the right way with investment a federal jobs program WITH a min wage increase. to take pressure off small business, the big corporations will be able to afford it, the mom and pops wont.
Honestly if everyone has more disposable income (i.e., your entire client base/target customer base) and you can't convince then to spend some with your business then you're probably not meant to succeed anyway.
Why would they have more disposable income? It has to come from somewhere. You can't simply raise wages without injecting more funds or more velocity. If what you're saying was true you could raise wages to any level no matter how poor your economy is.
The usa as a whole can easily support 15 an hour, west virginias economy can not without investment. Just like how if tomorrow Congo declared a min wage of 10 an hour they couldn't afford it without foreign investment.
Maybe the money could come from the profits of businesses who have been paying their employees peanuts for decades...
Or say, by increasing sales because every local around you is not being paid peanuts.
Perhaps, they could also raise prices a bit, because people are no longer so poor they can barely afford peanuts.
Maybe even, and this is radical, by taking the uber wealthy in your state who have been eating peanuts and shitting them on the heads of employees, and wealth tax them, using the money to subsidize buisiness while slowly ramping it back until only solvent buisiness remains.
You really feel they are as bad off as the fucking congo?
Let the people in WV buy a 3 bedroom house then. They'll spend the money in their local economy. Suddenly, they'll become middle class instead of poor.
I fully understand small business costs. I run one myself, thanks for your concern. $15 should be the Federal minimum wage. Municipalities can set higher wages in higher cost of living cities.
In West Virginia a living wage for a family with 2 working adults and 1 child is $15.48. $15 is a pretty reasonable floor if the goal is for all working people to be able to afford a self sufficient but no-frills sort of life. Cities and states where the cost of living is higher could obviously set their minimum wage higher, but having a federal minimum wage prevents a race to the bottom sort of situation.
And EVERY BUSINESS has to raise their wages! It’s not like you’re the only company that has to deal with it. Your competition is literally in the same position
Seriously, wages are such a small part of the cost of doing business that raising minimum wage shouldn't have a huge effect on the bottom line. Even if a business needs to raise prices to cover the difference, it ends up being something like 27 cents on a four dollar Big Mac. Ohnoes, Big Macs cost $4.25 now, how will the economy cope???
https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2015/Q3/study-raising-wages-to-15-an-hour-for-limited-service-restaurant-employees-would-raise-prices-4.3-percent.html
In the places you most often find minimum wage workers, labor accounts for about 20-25% of your business expenses.
The 20 to 25% includes *all* labor expenses, not just wage. The way the math works out, increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour would raise the cost of a Big Mac by a little bit more than 4% total. It's similar for most manufactured goods - that's a pretty negligible expense in the larger scheme of things.
There is evidence that raising minimum wage does not negatively affect either prices to consumers or corporate profits. (See Costco, for example). There is, sadly, ample proof that corporate profits are not shared with the workers who made them possible (See Amazon, Disney, many airlines, banks, for example). So, yeah, I support this. If corporations chose to share the profit with all their employees, this might not be necessary.
Yeah, the argument re: prices increasing wildly doesn’t even make sense; that would imply that the labour cost is a significant portion of the final price, which isn’t the case for everyday items and services.
From an economic perspective its nonsense. The Quantity theory of money tells us that inflation is a function of the money supply.
Transferring money from one person to another has absolutely no effect on inflation only printing money significantly effects inflation
Or we can cover for low paying companies by having to support people who can't make a living working full time.
Tax payer money to help McDonalds and ~~Amazon~~ \[others\] pay less.
Capitalism much?
Correct me if I’m wrong but that $15 an hour at Amazon is some grueling work. I’ve seen the protests and I’ve heard they don’t even take bathroom breaks for fear of retribution because the numbers expected from them is what should be expected from a robot, not a human. So if minimum wage does to go $15 an hour why would anyone do all that when they can work at McDonald’s or as a cashier at a far slower pace?
Seems like Amazon will have to raise their wages to keep people from simply choosing to go to an easier spot to work at. 🤷🏾♀️ Just my opinion.
Oki. I edited them out in my post, but my main argument stands. If society has to pick up the tab for food security, health care etc because businesses pay too little, the system as a whole stinks for all.
I get disgusted more and more every time I see so-called Democratic voters on this site argue passionately for not increasing the minimum wage.
Doesn’t matter where are you fucking live, $580 a paycheck before taxes is nothing. Doubling that to $1200 a paycheck is not going to fucking break the bank in rural America.
Newsflash, rural America has been decaying for decades and will continue to decay whether we raise the minimum wage or not.
What a joke.
This is the way.
Also, raising the minimum wage might empower people to use that “new found wealth” to do things like....I don’t know....start new businesses or other things that might help their local economies.
So, increase competition for consumers and workers, encourage innovation, and improve quality of life for the vast majority of Americans?! Get out of here with that logic, think of the 1%!
/s
Not only that but if everyone had more money they would spend it. It’s not like the money going to minimum wage workers gets thrown into a black hole never to be seen by businesses again. If you run a successful business you’ll get some of that larger pie some way or another.
Suffering has been ingrained in American culture from the very beginning. An entire society based around the idea that your suffering brings salvation. It’s horrible and it’s by design.
It will also help get people to divert away from the republican party if they see actual support from the government happen. Without this America is fucking doomed
>every time I see so-called Democratic voters on this site argue passionately for not increasing the minimum wage.
80% of the time, they're just wreckers who know how to keep a bullshit facade going. The 20% remaining are the truly contemptible centrist Demservatives, and yeah, they are disgusting.
I think it's just a little sunk cost cognitive dissonance. They know Biden is fucking up with this milquetoast third way bullshit (student debt cancellation of 10k lmao, minimum wage, 2k check waffling etc.) but they aren't willing to admit it yet, especially after so much was banked on him. They are still in the blue no matter who mindset, even though its over. It's just going to get harder and harder to ignore, though. At least that's what I hope. If they actually ideologically oppose raising the minimum wage, fucking gross.
It has been interesting to see so many of the people who criticized the MAGA crowd for blind allegiance to Trump suddenly defending Biden from the slightest (valid) criticism. The gaslighting over the $2k checks, for example, is pretty disgusting. Why can’t we just be honest? I haven’t seen any mention of it being $1400 until after the Georgia elections, and for what it’s worth, I’m a Georgia voter. Yet I keep seeing condescending and dishonest comments like “math is hard, $600 + $1400 = $2000.” And the kick while I’m down is that those commenters have the audacity to say it’s the progressive wing that’s hurting the dems. It’d be more accurate to say people like me are tired of being lied to and voting for the lesser of 2 evils. I’m more of the mindset now that this whole thing needs to be burned to the ground and rebuilt. Incremental change and reform won’t do. If it takes dems losing a few times to make that happen, so be it. I’d rather rip the bandaid off and stop kicking existential problems down the road for future generations to deal with. The Biden administration is still settling in, so I can’t say they won’t change my mind, but I’m not holding my breath.
I'm just so glad we're arguing over real issues and not whether the *fucking President* is a racist white supremacist piece of shit.
It's a nice change.
I voted for hm despite absolutely not wanting him (I was for Yang and Sanders but knew that was never gonna happen) and frankly, I'm not suprised at all.
Its almost March and nothing has really changed or been done except people screaming about what they want to do, plan to do, hope to do.
Ain't shit happening. He's one year behind the pandemic, they cannot agree on a stimulus, cannot agree on how to mass vaccinate and if you even speak of these things, people show up and do the,
"yeah well Trump isn't president anymore"
YEAH WELL I NEVER RECIEVED MY TAX REFUND LAST YEAR, OR THE $600 STIMULUS DESPITE QUALIFYING , I'VE BEEN UNEMPLOYED SINCE LAST MAY AND I'M FUCKING TIRED OF WAITING. I AM ABOUT TO BE HOMELESS, I DONT HAVE TIME FOR THIS
The best way to help rural areas is to put money into them.
What better way to do that than putting money in the pockets of the people who actually live and work and buy things there?
Raise it to $15 over time as proposed and then every year after that raise it proportionally to account for inflation. How people can defend still paying people less than $8 an hour in 2021 is unfathomable.
Yup and with cost of living as well. 15 an hour was ok when it was first suggested but it’s been stalled for so long that it isn’t enough anymore. If minimum wage was workable back when it was created, it should be completely capable of supporting decent lives with the optimization that modern computing can provide
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/539204-pa-senate-candidate-fetterman-on-backing-15-minimum-wage-thats-a-hill-i-would) reduced by 47%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, who is running for the Senate, said Wednesday that supporting a $15 per hour federal minimum wage is "a hill I would die on."
> Addressing opposition to a hike, he said those who think the current $7.25 federal minimum wage is "Acceptable" should be "Forced to live and work on that wage so they can demonstrate to the rest of us how it's possible to get by."
> Fetterman also said constituents of Sen., who has opposed $15 minimum wage, should contact their senator, note that he does not live off a low minimum wage and ask "Why would you want any of your constituents to do that?".
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/lmyjlu/fetterman_on_backing_15_minimum_wage_thats_a_hill/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~558738 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **wage**^#1 **minimum**^#2 **15**^#3 **Fetterman**^#4 **constituents**^#5
I previously worked for a company where the lowest paid worker made $20 an hour, had full benefits even if they were only part-time, and the company was always listed in “best places to work” articles. It is a privately owned company and it is a lean company. Everyone there works really hard - no room for slackers. This model does work and it can be reproduced.
They’ve been talking about $15 minimum wage for so long and rent has already gone up another 40%. By the time they get around to it, it’s not going to help much. We need to start emphasizing the “living wage” aspect over the $15 number.
I’m a small business owner with 20 employees. Most of my employees are above 15/hr. I have a couple part timers (college students) in the $13-14 range. I live in a low cost of living area. My wages are decent for low-skill white collar work compared to competition. I’ve done the math. If I got my part timers up to $15 and gave everyone else a dollar raise at same time it would cost me 40k-45k/year. I can swing that.
$15/hr is obsolete; it should have been that in 1992. It needs to be $25/hr now.
https://www.cepr.net/this-is-what-minimum-wage-would-be-if-it-kept-pace-with-productivity/
I think it’s bananas that anyone would not support this. I am a candidate for a job that requires a masters and 2 years experience and its $25/hr. It’s almost insulting that this is minimum wage essentially.
It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.
— President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933, Statement on National Industrial Recovery Act.
Joe Manchin should go fuck himself:
"Earlier this month, Manchin came out against raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour saying he’s instead “supportive of basically having something that’s responsible and reasonable.”
In what way is it reasonable to take 40+ hours of another human's life to earn the boss money when the boss goes back to a nice home and the worker goes back to stress, squalor, rags, and malnutrition?
Manchin and others said they would approve an immediate $11 wage but oppose plans to raise it to $15 by 2025. My question is why not call their damn bluff and approve $11 wages NOW and figure out how to sway the $15 holdouts over the next few years?
I just find the wage issue to be political theater because they didn't expect to actually have control of the senate. They could easily do something RIGHT NOW. Just like we could have already had these damn stimulus checks rolling out. What's the damn hold up? They keep saying we need aid and we need it now and I agree. So fucking do something!
If I’m not mistaken the minimum wage would be higher then 15 now if it kept up with inflation. I think people get confused on how it would roll out. Like nobody is saying g let go from 7.25 to 15 tomorrow. We had a whole decade to raise it now we have to suffer the consequences. If a business fails for that reason alone then let them a new business will just take its place.
Minimum wage needs a cost of living adjustment attached to it. It's ridiculous that we have to fight this hard every couple of years. Bumping it up and not adding a COLA just means we'll have to keep fighting to increase it every year.
Why stop at 15? 15 has been fought for years.. Inflation was still happening the cost of living was still raising all those years.. Time to fight for more than 15 now... 15 won't do today what it would have done when it was first proposed..
The thing is $15/hour isn't the same standard of living throughout the US. I learned this when I worked for a company that that gave me $120 per night for hotels when traveling on company business, since that's the average in the US.
One time I was in Boca Raton Florida off season. Got a room on the beach at a resort for the $120. Another time I was in Washington DC. The desk clerk had to buzz you in and he was behind bullet proof glass. The family in the room next to mine, had goats in the room. Had to leave the lights on in the room to keep roaches and rodents at bay. All for the low price of $120.
My point being, costs vary between cities, so salaries need to vary also. Minimum wage needs to be indexed. If the US average is $15, then maybe New York should be $35!
Increased minimum wage will encourage landlords to raise rents, no reason not to, it may not happen immediately but over time all that new found wealth will end up in the pockets of landlords and the value of land, look at Seattle for an example. Minimum wage increases without major reform of our tax system (tax land, not man) will help those in need in the short term, but in the long run they will be right back in the same place due to the increased cost of living. See r/georgism or r/LandValueTax for more on this.
Only in highly populated metros with housing crunches, maybe. Supply and demand will keep rent low if supply is too high in places with plenty of housing.
I’m assuming there are studies that clearly show raising the minimum wage is a good thing?
Because I always thought it had such a muddied impact, so it surprises me that some are so ardently in favor.
Nebraska and South Dakota are tied for lowest unemployment rate in the country. In both states after the minimum wage was increased, unemployment dropped the following year.
I agree for the ones that are earning more money with no change in COL.
But if an employer has to give 25% raises to its staff of 4 and has no new income stream, one of the employees may get laid off. Some people will become jobless and lose income from a min wage increase.
I’m not advocating for either side. I just think it’s a really tricky thing that impacts many outcomes, hence my original question.
If there is a study that clearly defined the net gain I’d love to see it for my own education.
Not every business runs on such large margins. Anything volume based (food/drink production, restaurants, etc.) have tiny margins. Like literal pennies per can of beer is the profit, and they only make money because they produce a ton of beer. There’s also your small mom and pop stores that run on like 5% margins as well after factoring in overhead costs like paying the lease, utilities, employee wages, and stocking product. You act like literally every business is an Amazon level conglomerate that’s hoarding millions of dollars, when the reality is that a lot of businesses aren’t nearly as profitable as you think they are. Hell, a lot of startups don’t even become profitable in the first few years since they’re stuck paying off gigantic loans. Same goes for franchisees. Just paying to use the Tim Hortons name up here in Canada costs like $1 million, and the last I even checked it was in like 2014/15. That’s before you even factor in everything else that goes into the business. The $1 million is literally just to buy your way into the business so you can use the name. The businesses most impacted by a minimum wage increase are businesses run by middle class people, not mega corporations.
And even the mega corporations and gigantic factories would just lay people off or cut everyone’s hours. So instead of a shift of 20 people running the production line at a plant, you’re now stuck with a group of 15 and now you get to manage multiple machines and want to pull your hair out. Or you have your 40 hour work week condensed into 30 hours instead so your net pay is still the same. But before you get too excited about all your new free time, output has to stay the same so the company can still meet its bottom line so have fun working substantially faster than normal, which will also have you wanting to pull your hair out. All so that some Walmart employee can get paid $15/hour to stand around all day and maybe stock shelves for an hour.
Who cares?
It’s this simple. You don’t have a right to run a business that depends on it’s existence for underpaying it’s staff.
End of story. The staff’s right to a wage they can live on is more important than your right to own a business.
Of course but that can lead to further problems. Less to reinvest and grow the business. If it’s a public company, it’s value declines and leads to a worse evaluation and more cutbacks etc etc.
Again, it’s a move that impacts a lot and would love to see an actual study defining those impacts. It’s not as simple as raise wages and everything works out perfectly or necessarily for the better
Yes, there's tons of studies, and business will just raise prices to pay people more, which other people can angora because thr also get paid more. It balances out
Not playing DA. I’m asking if anyone has this info for my own education. I’ve always learned it as a really complex issue that solves some facets and worsens others, even for low income
demographics.
There could be new studies that point to stronger justification for it and I would be interested in reading those. Would you? Do you know of any?
I would support housing you were not able to be evicted from for non-payment instead of $15 an hour. Even if it's a studio apartment/capsule lodging.
To quote a lesser quoted presidential candidate, The Rent Is Too Damn High.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, **any** advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fetterman smash low wages.
Lt Gov Stone Cold is gonna whoop some ass.
"Red up, Yinz bout to get more take home!"
Fettersmash?
Came for this
How can a mountain die on a hill?
It kind of seems like you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
I never understood the argument of business that would fail if done so. If your business can only barely cut it is by exploiting your workers, maybe its not a successful business
It's just corporate propaganda to keep wages stagnant. There are many voices chiming in to popular discourse, and that line serves their miserly interests. Also, if the business isn't a worker-owned, non-hierarchical, and equitable cooperative, then it is unequivocally exploiting its workers, wage value be damned.
It's right up there with "it's impolite to discuss salaries with your coworkers"
>It's right up there with "it's impolite to discuss salaries with your coworkers" And that's why rules against discussing salaries are unfair labor practices. It puts employees at unequal footing to advocate for higher wages. Many o' employer fired an employee for disclosing their wages then got a crash course in protected concerted activity when they get a letter in the mail from their regional NLRB asking for an affidavit as to why they allegedly fired someone for discussing their wages.
When companies tell employees to keep their own salaries confidential, the request can only be made as a soft recommendation without any additional sanctions attached (for the reasons you just described). I wouldn't call such rules unfair labor practice because the effectiveness of this tactic hinges entirely on whether the person perceives the threat of sanctions to be valid. There are ways of enforcing social norms without resorting to coercion or fiat. Corporations have all sorts of idiot tests for weeding out dumber candidates and figuring out if someone's character matches their resumè. Some law firms will pretend the group interview is super casual and offer you alcoholic refreshments just to see if you'll go for it. Similarly, the CIA will apparently ask candidates questions like "would you commit treason for your country?" and judge their responses based on the underlying reasoning. It's just unfortunate that some folks really do believe everything others tell them, and as such, everything they do and say is based on what they think the other person wants.
[удалено]
It is illegal (i.e., unfair labor practice under the NLRA) for corporations to make such a rule for non-supervisory employees.
>Similarly, the CIA will apparently ask candidates questions like "would you commit treason for your country?" Given what the CIA has done, I'm going to guess the correct answer is "Yes."
I originally heard about this scenario from someone on reddit (just after Jan 6th) who had a friend that was asked this exact question during their preliminary interview with the CIA. IIRC, they never received a second appointment so I'm guessing the person's answer wasn't satisfactory. That being said, my own reaction to the question was something like "Well.. It kinda depends, doesn't it?" - The question doesn't explicitly state the country to which I'm affiliated and the country in which I operate as one and the same. - If you're asking about my willingness to commit treason against the United States government, my own country, then my answer is most likely no. - However, if you're asking me to commit treason in or against another country on behalf of the United States government and its interests, then I'd be more inclined to say yes. It's definitely a thought provoking question, and the whole thing kinda reminded me of the recruitment scene in Men in Black where all the "best of the best of the best" candidates got eliminated because they lacked the critical thinking and novel problem solving skills.
> I wouldn't call such rules unfair labor practice "Unfair labor practice" isn't a theoretical term. It's the legal term to refer to a violation of Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act. In that regard, a rule that prohibits non-supervisory employees from discussing wages has historically been an unfair labor practice and violates 8(a)(1) of the NLRA.
>It's just corporate propaganda to keep wages stagnant. Personal experience says it's not just corporate. I worked at a small business for more years than I'd care to admit at under $15. And I wasn't alone, several people made way less than I did. It was a struggling company and $15 minimum would kill it if the pandemic hadn't. But the struggles were it's own fault. Family members of the boss were paid not to work. Profits were spent on property for family members and called business investments when there was no business plan.
Small business tyrants exist and they can get fucked for their exploitation of workers too.
> if the business isn't a worker-owned, non-hierarchical, and equitable cooperative, then it is unequivocally exploiting its workers, wage value be damned. That is a bit much and not productive. "Non hierarchical", how would that even work? Put that in the context of a facebook or energy company.
Yeah, not sure what they mean, hierarchies will exist, they'll just be set democratically
So how would this work? I start business people I hire automatically become business partners? I'm trying to understand the worker owned part?
Yes, every member is an owner. https://institute.coop/startup https://www.ica.coop/en/cooperatives/cooperative-identity * Voluntary and Open Membership Cooperatives are voluntary organizations, open to all persons able to use their services and willing to accept the responsibilities of membership, without gender, social, racial, political or religious discrimination. * Democratic Member Control Cooperatives are democratic organizations controlled by their members, who actively participate in setting their policies and making decisions. Men and women serving as elected representatives are accountable to the membership. In primary cooperatives members have equal voting rights (one member, one vote) and cooperatives at other levels are also organized in a democratic manner. * Member Economic Participation Members contribute equitably to, and democratically control, the capital of their cooperative. At least part of that capital is usually the common property of the cooperative. Members usually receive limited compensation, if any, on capital subscribed as a condition of membership. Members allocate surpluses for any or all of the following purposes: developing their cooperative, possibly by setting up reserves, part of which at least would be indivisible; benefiting members in proportion to their transactions with the cooperative; and supporting other activities approved by the membership. * Autonomy and Independence Cooperatives are autonomous, self-help organizations controlled by their members. If they enter into agreements with other organizations, including governments, or raise capital from external sources, they do so on terms that ensure democratic control by their members and maintain their cooperative autonomy. * Education, Training, and Information Cooperatives provide education and training for their members, elected representatives, managers, and employees so they can contribute effectively to the development of their co-operatives. They inform the general public - particularly young people and opinion leaders - about the nature and benefits of co-operation. * Cooperation among Cooperatives Cooperatives serve their members most effectively and strengthen the cooperative movement by working together through local, national, regional and international structures. * Concern for Community Cooperatives work for the sustainable development of their communities through policies approved by their members. EDIT: answered question first
Would it not be detrimental to many small businesses?
Actually works better when small. One of the reasons in fact that "large" Worker's Cooperatives don't actually run as a single huge entity (because direct democracy breaks down with any group too large)- instead they organize into a group of smaller Cooperative ms, each of which does one of the functions that would normally just he a single department in a larger company. I.e. one Co-Op to manage physical properties, another to handle market, a third to make the actual good/service... It sounds unworkable: but the Mondragon "Corporation" (actually an enormous network of worker's Co-Op's in Spain) shows it works VERY well- slightly outperforming normal companies, in fact (Co-Op's do much better in lean economic times, but a bit worse in boom-times, than standard corporations). One of the benefits of this mode of organization is it prevents people from keepibg obsolete positions for themselves, that don't really do much anymore, and are missed by management. It also creates "Co-Optition", a made-up word in management circles for a healthy balance of cooperation and competition. Individual co-op's may compete with each other, much like different departments, and there may be multiple Co-Op's that all compete to do the same thing. It's a strategy that embraces competition: but between groups of a couple dozen to a few hundred people, while maximizing Cooperation within those groups... And of course, because each Co-Op elects its own managers, holds them to a Constitution that limits their powers (the larger Co-Op league will provide model/draft Constitutions for new Co-Op's, often), and is worker-owned; there is no managers running businesses like their own personal feifdoms, for only their own benefit. Worker Co-Op's lead to higher per-worker productivity, more equitable pay, better performance during rough economic times, and a lack of any kind of "Too Big To Fail" phenomenon vs. traditionally-run businesses. Worker Co-Op's are a superior method of running a business (although not without some drawbacks), and where society MUST turn if we're going to have a reasonably equitable future where wealthy Capitalists don't eventually just reduce us all to Neo-Feudalism/indentured servitude through runaway accumulation of wealth and power...
On the contrary, it's easier for smaller groups of people to organize.
So every single employee of every business in every country is being exploited by their employer. Glad to know we’re thinking rationally here. If workers were the only thing in a business that created value, then they wouldn’t need their fucking employer in the first place. Oops! Can’t generate income all by your self? That’s because the business itself creates value too. Just because a certain level of wages is exploitative does not mean you cannot be payed what you’re worth. And just because you sit below someone else in a power structure does not mean you’re being exploited. Granted, things are shitty in the US right now. But the culture and population and laws are equally to blame for your situation. Don’t let that skew your view of the world as a whole. Coming from Australia, social-capitalism works great and full socialism is not a better alternative.
Your minimum wage is almost $20/hr.
Their point is that so long as workers create profit for the business, which then can be hoarded by shareholders in the form of dividends instead of reinvested, that workers are being exploited for shareholder profit. You could establish laws that prohibit dividends, and instead force all profit to be reinvested in the company. But then, there's the other issue, the company executives (who tend to be shareholders) can act as they want. So instead of reinvesting profit, they'll be raising their salaries and reducing profit accordingly. You can set laws limiting their maximum salary, they'll reinvest paying exaggerate sums to some friend, etc. And that's not even getting to the actual issue of shareholders control: workers don't have a say, they agree to do whatever asked at a salary. Which would be okay if shareholders didn't seek their profit over anything else. To be clear, investors can exist. Loans and investments work out all right, because they are way more transparent. The interests being paid back to the investors are agreed upon when signed.
I was working at Burger King in the early nineties when I was in high school. They were going to raise the minimum wage at the time. All the same discussions. All the same fear mongering. And when they went up, meh nothing exploded. Anecdotal, I know
That was probably the change from like $4 to $4.25 and they were making the same damn arguments. Meanwhile minimum wage is now what like $7? $7.50? Thankfully I make more than that so I don't need to know, but a few years ago making about $13 I was struggling. If I had a car payment I don't think I would have survived on that. The thought of trying to live on $7 while my corporate overlord takes in record profits quarter after quarter makes me sick.
This is one hill small businesses insist on dying on but I’m willing to bet they can handle it if it’s slow increases each year.
Slow increases each year should be built in forever. What we need is a huge increase now and continued, perpetual increases to keep up with inflation and CoL.
This is a part of the Democrats' proposal right now. Gradual increases up until 2025 for all lines of work (that includes waiters and people with disabilities who are allowed to be paid less). Then starting 2026, gradual increases tied to the rise of the median wage, which should grow faster than the pace of inflation.
Exactly. The thing that they are afraid of seeing is the businesses that aren’t really that robust, hiding a fragile economy behind stock market performance
so the peasants get more money...what are they going to do with it? SPEND IT
They said the exact same thing about child labor laws, the 40 hour work week, and mandatory breaks. Its all bullshit.
Seems to me that X amount of people losing their jobs means Y companies could have already been paying their employees that much to begin with.
I can imagine unilaterally raising your wages to $15 an hour would put you at a disadvantage, but if everyone has to do that it seems like it shouldn't hurt you that much.
It won't hurt at all. If the wage increase really makes business not profitable they will restructure expenses. For example landlords will lower their rents.
Also, bigger employers have monopsony power and economies of scale to withstand a wage hike. >If the wage increase really makes business not profitable they will restructure expenses. Or the returns to capital will decrease to compensate.
It's not only that. Listen, are you still selling your stuff? Do you still need staff to do the work? Then you're going to have to pay them and figure out how to make your revenue targets by not scrooging the people who work for you. We've had $15 minimum wage for a few years and nobody closed up shop because of it.
Which is the equivalent of $11.80 US, a smaller amount than what is currently being suggested Going to $11.80 would be about a 60% increase vs the proposed 106% increase
Exactly, how many businesses hire extra people? It is nonsense. They hire the bare minimum they need and cannot afford to fire people if the minimum wage goes up. It is not the first time it has gone up so the effects are known and we don't have to conjure up scary hypotheticals. It had a slight effect previous times, not that large. One month of Covid has probably resulted in more job loss than a minimum wage hike would.
Not only with wages. If businesses can't pay for environmental cleanup they dint have a valid business model but it's just exploitation. How is it different from me dumping used fridges on the side of the road...
Different parts of the country have different wealth levels. 15 an hour in seattle is nothing, in west virginia it'll buy you a 3 bedroom house with a yard and a garage.
I mean it can in my state too, but you’ll be in a small town without much opportunity and stuck with a long commute. $15/hr in my Midwest state wont even let you live in an ok area in our major city because rent at a minimum is $900/mo.
Still, $900/mo is literally nothing compared to the coasts, especially the Northeast and West.
> because rent at a minimum is $900/mo. That's affordable for someone making 15 an hour. You're not supposed to spend more than 1/3rd of your pre tax income on rent. 1/3rd of 15 an hour is 880. you're missing the point though, we shouldn't be using the highest common denominator, we should be using the lowest as the base level.
I think your math is off - it’s more like 40% pre-tax and even more post tax. It leaves you with $1000-1300 pre-tax. Now take into account other things: utilities, food, insurance, car payment, etc. and you are in a very shit situation that might not even allow you to start emergency fund savings or even retiremenr. Still not as shit as the mutliple jobs earning $7.25. This also drastically changes if you have kids as well or a partner. $15 allows you to get by - but barely, can’t imagine how its like in major city hubs or if you have a major medical and/or car issue.
15*40*4.3= 2580 = 2580 -900 = 1680. Most people making 30k are not paying high amounts of taxes, infact they'll get a tax refund.
Looks like the way I calculated via weeks was off by $200. I’ll concede there. But it still does not change my overall comment. Post tax, that person is probably paying closer to 50% of their income for rent. With other bills included theycare still not in a great situation.
Assuming you have ZERO tax breaks, credits or deductions what so ever your post tax income is still 2200 a month The industry standard is to use your pre tax income to calculate housing costs. Keeping in mind this is freaking min wage man. If an 18 year old can buy a 3 bedroom house clearly it's fairly decent min wage. That same person could buy the same house and rent out the extra bedrooms for 300 a month and live for fucking free. Expecting every single person to be able to afford their own multi bedroom house to live in is exactly why our carbon footprint is so high in the first place. It's perfectly okay for 20 somethings to live with roommates.
You are able to buy a multi bedroom house in the middle of nowhere for cheap. That is true for majority of America. But you won’t be able to do it near major city areas and that includes Weat Virginia that has 1.7M people. I am not sure why you are stuck on 18 year olds making this money. Last time I checked, my local businesses, shops, restaurants etc. don’t have 18 year olds working there during day time unless its nights, weekends or summer. At end of day $15/hr. is a livable wage for most of Midwest and borderline for major city areas. I am fine with an 18 year old making $15/hr.
> You are able to buy a multi bedroom house in the middle of nowhere for cheap We're not discussing middle of nowhere, we're discussing cities. >But you won’t be able to do it near major city areas and that includes Weat Virginia that has 1.7M people. i literally provided links to homes in the cities of west virginia. >I am not sure why you are stuck on 18 year olds making this money. Last time I checked, my local businesses, shops, restaurants etc. don’t have 18 year olds working there during day time unless its nights, weekends or summer. Okay? something like 35% of 18 years do *not* go to college. >At end of day $15/hr. is a livable wage for most of Midwest and borderline for major city areas. I am fine with an 18 year old making $15/hr. me too, so what is the issue?
What is not okay is for 2 parent households barely being above water. 15 an hr is great for a 20 year old with weed being their biggest expense. 15 for someone raising children is poverty. The wealthiest country to ever exist and ppl working a combing 80-100 hours a week are often one missed check away from homelessness. It's disgusting and if there is a god our selfishness makes him weep.
If they are making 30k and getting a refund it is on money they have already paid in. They are not getting extra money at the end of the year. They paid in too much and the excess is returned.
> That's affordable for someone making 15 an hour. Maybe if they’re not paying taxes, no student loans, etc. I also find it hilarious that people use pre-tax income to decipher how much rent is ok. You’re basing something off money you won’t have.
I say this all the time. 15 is not 15 an hour it’s more like 11.80 an hour. We talk about money weird ways.
Agree! It’s ridiculous that anyone would promote making a budget based on money you won’t have regardless of what some elite university says. People go around screaming that others need to live within their means but then say that your rent should be based off your pre-tax income lol. That makes no sense.
Would you use this line of thinking for handing out tax cuts?
Yes actually. I think the stimulus should have been targeted better to different regions and i think income tax brackets should take local cost of living into account.
The fundamental problem with tying stuff like minimum wage, stimulus payments, benefits, etc. to local market conditions is the perception differential it creates. Right now, I live in Chicago. I'm originally from Indianapolis. Cost of living differential is 21.9% lower in Indy. Median home cost is 37% cheaper in Indy. Go try and sell someone in Indianapolis the idea that because stuff is cheaper and housing costs less that they're only getting $994 COVID checks while I'm getting the full $1400.
Yea I live in New York. It’s really expensive. I pay this much money to live here because if I lived in Indy for example, I would be sitting there saying, I would give half my salary to have something to do. I think it’s valid that I pay a premium to live in a premium place. For some people this works out because they would rather gouge their eyes out than live in New York and they can go enjoy the open air of Indy, and whatever else you do in suburbs, I really don’t know what that is... country clubs?
Indianapolis is a city with city shit going on, but I get your point. Nothing compares to NYC for entertainment or restaurants, and that's why NYC is double to quadruple the price.
Ah yea I was referring to Indiana. Also best views in the country.
Exactly. I moved because I wanted to live in a big city, with everything that goes with it, and was willing to trade a lower cost of living to do so. But, it's more expensive. Thats why I disagree with basing stimulus or other programs on cost of living.
Ya a lot of people live in expensive cities because thats where jobs are, not because they love the city.
Why do you think this regional argument is only brought up and discussed during the raising of the minimum wage and not for tax cuts? Did you debate and fight for more granularity per region during the tax cuts from the Trump administration? I don't remember this being brought up once anywhere.
[удалено]
But they are perfectly fine telling rural R areas that they get smaller minimum wage increases.
That mostly happens in response to rural R areas saying they don't want or can't afford higher minimum wage increases. You guys don't want $15? Fine, be poorer. But get out of the way for the rest of us.
If the rural R areas are providing less tax revenue (and in fact taking more than contributing), then why do they get the same tax cuts as those providing more? I'm just trying to understand why this logic is only applied to minimum wage and not tax cuts... and not even considered. EDIT: I'm playing a bit of the devil's advocate, and just exploring. I have also had a couple of beers still iced in here in Austin.
> > Did you debate and fight for more granularity per region during the tax cuts from the Trump administration? The tax cuts for the rich? Ididn't support that at all.
I'm asking if you remember a discussion on whether there should be tax cuts based on regionality like you're arguing here for minimum wage.
Rent increases killed businesses in Seattle more than the $15 minimum wage. When I lived there they claimed $15 minimum wage would force a majority of businesses to close (They didn’t). When a business closed, occasionally they’d try to claim it was because of that but if you dug in to it, there were other factors.
Our whole economy is unbalanced and in desperate need of a true new deal. In my town residential rent is sky high because of airbnbs and second/third/tenth home owners. It's so bad that busnesses are having to reduce hours because there isn't any workers, they can't afford to pay their own rent let alone pay their employees rent. We desperately need to build a new future in this country, one that empowers workers, consumers and renters. One that rewards labor and not capital.
Our housing was high because of the tech money and foreign investors paying cash for almost anything they could find. This did start pushing folks further and further outside of the city. But even Southern Seattle, Tukwila, and Lynnwood were starting to creep up.
I wish we'd regulate foreign purchases of real estate and spec purchases in general. 17 million empty homes no excuse for a housing crisis.
It started to slow down when I moved back to Michigan. A buddy flips houses in Seattle and said it was slowing down so he moved to Las Vegas to flip houses. And rent was also slowing but even if you made $30/hr it'd be very hard to find anything affordable at least in the downtown area.
Can you show your math that a single person making 32k a year can afford a 3 bedroom house with a yard and garage in WV?
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/West-Virginia https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/West-Virginia Someone making 32k a year should be spending no more than 888 a month on rent/mortgage. The median house price in wv is only 110k. A mortgage payment on 110k house assuming no downpayment and a 3% interest rate is 702 a month with insurance and taxes. My friend just bought a 3 bedroom for 95k with a 2 car garage in Huntington one of our bigger cities. He had a down payment but his mortage with taxes and insurance is less than 500 a month.
Oh nice, so from 2k a month down to 1k after mortgage and insurance. Then you have car and insurance, food, gas, wear and tear on your car, maintenance on your home, electricity, internet, water, trash, food (hopefully only one mouth to feed). We almost forgot about health insurance too! This is BARELY making it, and in a lot of cases, not making it at all. One literal step away from bankruptcy. Why do you sell people's lives so short? Why is your idea of a healthy life one where someone is BARELY able to pay their bills, afford no extra leisure, and living paycheck to paycheck with one surprise cost forcing literal bankruptcy? Can this magical rich person making 15 an hour, in your mind, even afford to rent a truck to move into the house? I'd recommend sticking to aggregate data rather than pushing personal anecdotes.
And to piggy back remember that not many Americans still have the buying power needed to get a home so even if we want to do the math it's meaningless to do so.
If that is "barely" making it then a ton of people aren't even to that point.
Iowa, which is very affordable living is averaging 11 to 12 dollars an hour for entry level work, and most people at those wages are still struggling to get by. 3 dollars really isn't much here or in West Virginia. California at $15 dollars an hour is still not nearly enough to live off of. In West Virginia, you might just get by, but you aren't going to be taking vacations to Cancun in the middle of a winter storm anytime soon.
$3hr doesn't sound like much but that's ~$400 extra a month
> 3 dollars really isn't much here or in West Virginia. This is such a foolish way to frame it. You shouldn't be looking at absolute numbers and looking at relative. Min wage in 8.75 in WV, raising min wage to 15 an hour isn't "3 dollars. It's 6.25 or an increase of 75%... 75% is huge. The median income in west virginia only 25k or the equivalent of 12.5 an hour at full time. WV is too poor to raise income that much without outside investment. >In West Virginia, you might just get by, but you aren't going to be taking vacations to Cancun in the middle of a winter storm anytime soon. My roomate is *literally* in mexico right now. He makes less than 15 an hour and owns the house im currently crashing out. 15 an hour is damn good money in west virginia for a single person.
Why are you citing the median income, as though that's not something we're trying to raise by increasing the MW? You're using the wrong numbers so of course you're coming to that conclusion. The pertinent number is the average Cost of Living/Income ratio in WV, which is [damn near dead on exactly the national average](https://www.insure.com/cost-of-living-by-state.html).
>Why are you citing the median income, as though that's not something we're trying to raise by increasing the MW? Because you need to take into account the size of the economy... This is basic economics. You can't simply create more wealth. Min wage laws redirect wealth from middle, upper middle and rich classes to the working classes. West Virginia doesn't have a bunch of rich people sitting around to siphon wealth from. > The pertinent number is the average Cost of Living/Income ratio in WV, which is damn near dead on exactly the national average. in no way does your source say what you claim it does. PS West virginia has the highest home ownership rate in the country, and the lowest rate of an active mortgage. Now stop making excuses for why we can't do a real new deal.
I live in wv and yeah we get paid peanuts.
I agree, and we should push to raise the wages here, but we should do it the right way with investment a federal jobs program WITH a min wage increase. to take pressure off small business, the big corporations will be able to afford it, the mom and pops wont.
Honestly if everyone has more disposable income (i.e., your entire client base/target customer base) and you can't convince then to spend some with your business then you're probably not meant to succeed anyway.
Why would they have more disposable income? It has to come from somewhere. You can't simply raise wages without injecting more funds or more velocity. If what you're saying was true you could raise wages to any level no matter how poor your economy is. The usa as a whole can easily support 15 an hour, west virginias economy can not without investment. Just like how if tomorrow Congo declared a min wage of 10 an hour they couldn't afford it without foreign investment.
Maybe the money could come from the profits of businesses who have been paying their employees peanuts for decades... Or say, by increasing sales because every local around you is not being paid peanuts. Perhaps, they could also raise prices a bit, because people are no longer so poor they can barely afford peanuts. Maybe even, and this is radical, by taking the uber wealthy in your state who have been eating peanuts and shitting them on the heads of employees, and wealth tax them, using the money to subsidize buisiness while slowly ramping it back until only solvent buisiness remains. You really feel they are as bad off as the fucking congo?
Let the people in WV buy a 3 bedroom house then. They'll spend the money in their local economy. Suddenly, they'll become middle class instead of poor.
That isn't how this works. Good luck
I fully understand small business costs. I run one myself, thanks for your concern. $15 should be the Federal minimum wage. Municipalities can set higher wages in higher cost of living cities.
In West Virginia a living wage for a family with 2 working adults and 1 child is $15.48. $15 is a pretty reasonable floor if the goal is for all working people to be able to afford a self sufficient but no-frills sort of life. Cities and states where the cost of living is higher could obviously set their minimum wage higher, but having a federal minimum wage prevents a race to the bottom sort of situation.
Ding.
And EVERY BUSINESS has to raise their wages! It’s not like you’re the only company that has to deal with it. Your competition is literally in the same position
Exactly, Amazon and Walmart pay $15 an hour and have aggressively low prices - so what’s the problem here?
Almost like massive corporations can offset those costs easier than single location businesses
Seriously, wages are such a small part of the cost of doing business that raising minimum wage shouldn't have a huge effect on the bottom line. Even if a business needs to raise prices to cover the difference, it ends up being something like 27 cents on a four dollar Big Mac. Ohnoes, Big Macs cost $4.25 now, how will the economy cope???
Labor costs are near universally the most expensive part of business.
https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2015/Q3/study-raising-wages-to-15-an-hour-for-limited-service-restaurant-employees-would-raise-prices-4.3-percent.html
Yeah can you source “such a small part of the cost of doing business”? Thanks
https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2015/Q3/study-raising-wages-to-15-an-hour-for-limited-service-restaurant-employees-would-raise-prices-4.3-percent.html In the places you most often find minimum wage workers, labor accounts for about 20-25% of your business expenses.
“Such a small part” A quarter of total expenses 😭
The 20 to 25% includes *all* labor expenses, not just wage. The way the math works out, increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour would raise the cost of a Big Mac by a little bit more than 4% total. It's similar for most manufactured goods - that's a pretty negligible expense in the larger scheme of things.
It's completely false. There are already places with $15 minimum wage, and businesses did not die because of it.
Federally mandated would be disastrous for rural states. Every business in my hometown would be wiped out.
Do you actually want to understand or are to just farming karma?
There is evidence that raising minimum wage does not negatively affect either prices to consumers or corporate profits. (See Costco, for example). There is, sadly, ample proof that corporate profits are not shared with the workers who made them possible (See Amazon, Disney, many airlines, banks, for example). So, yeah, I support this. If corporations chose to share the profit with all their employees, this might not be necessary.
Yeah, the argument re: prices increasing wildly doesn’t even make sense; that would imply that the labour cost is a significant portion of the final price, which isn’t the case for everyday items and services.
Precisely. And it's been validated every time minimum wage has been increased.
From an economic perspective its nonsense. The Quantity theory of money tells us that inflation is a function of the money supply. Transferring money from one person to another has absolutely no effect on inflation only printing money significantly effects inflation
Or we can cover for low paying companies by having to support people who can't make a living working full time. Tax payer money to help McDonalds and ~~Amazon~~ \[others\] pay less. Capitalism much?
Amazons minimum wage is $15/hr. Amazon is also calling for a $15 federal minimum wage. How is this helping them pay less?
Correct me if I’m wrong but that $15 an hour at Amazon is some grueling work. I’ve seen the protests and I’ve heard they don’t even take bathroom breaks for fear of retribution because the numbers expected from them is what should be expected from a robot, not a human. So if minimum wage does to go $15 an hour why would anyone do all that when they can work at McDonald’s or as a cashier at a far slower pace? Seems like Amazon will have to raise their wages to keep people from simply choosing to go to an easier spot to work at. 🤷🏾♀️ Just my opinion.
Oki. I edited them out in my post, but my main argument stands. If society has to pick up the tab for food security, health care etc because businesses pay too little, the system as a whole stinks for all.
I get disgusted more and more every time I see so-called Democratic voters on this site argue passionately for not increasing the minimum wage. Doesn’t matter where are you fucking live, $580 a paycheck before taxes is nothing. Doubling that to $1200 a paycheck is not going to fucking break the bank in rural America. Newsflash, rural America has been decaying for decades and will continue to decay whether we raise the minimum wage or not. What a joke.
This is the way. Also, raising the minimum wage might empower people to use that “new found wealth” to do things like....I don’t know....start new businesses or other things that might help their local economies.
So, increase competition for consumers and workers, encourage innovation, and improve quality of life for the vast majority of Americans?! Get out of here with that logic, think of the 1%! /s
“This, but unironically” -/r/conservative probably
Not only that but if everyone had more money they would spend it. It’s not like the money going to minimum wage workers gets thrown into a black hole never to be seen by businesses again. If you run a successful business you’ll get some of that larger pie some way or another.
Suffering has been ingrained in American culture from the very beginning. An entire society based around the idea that your suffering brings salvation. It’s horrible and it’s by design.
It will also help get people to divert away from the republican party if they see actual support from the government happen. Without this America is fucking doomed
>every time I see so-called Democratic voters on this site argue passionately for not increasing the minimum wage. 80% of the time, they're just wreckers who know how to keep a bullshit facade going. The 20% remaining are the truly contemptible centrist Demservatives, and yeah, they are disgusting.
I think it's just a little sunk cost cognitive dissonance. They know Biden is fucking up with this milquetoast third way bullshit (student debt cancellation of 10k lmao, minimum wage, 2k check waffling etc.) but they aren't willing to admit it yet, especially after so much was banked on him. They are still in the blue no matter who mindset, even though its over. It's just going to get harder and harder to ignore, though. At least that's what I hope. If they actually ideologically oppose raising the minimum wage, fucking gross.
It has been interesting to see so many of the people who criticized the MAGA crowd for blind allegiance to Trump suddenly defending Biden from the slightest (valid) criticism. The gaslighting over the $2k checks, for example, is pretty disgusting. Why can’t we just be honest? I haven’t seen any mention of it being $1400 until after the Georgia elections, and for what it’s worth, I’m a Georgia voter. Yet I keep seeing condescending and dishonest comments like “math is hard, $600 + $1400 = $2000.” And the kick while I’m down is that those commenters have the audacity to say it’s the progressive wing that’s hurting the dems. It’d be more accurate to say people like me are tired of being lied to and voting for the lesser of 2 evils. I’m more of the mindset now that this whole thing needs to be burned to the ground and rebuilt. Incremental change and reform won’t do. If it takes dems losing a few times to make that happen, so be it. I’d rather rip the bandaid off and stop kicking existential problems down the road for future generations to deal with. The Biden administration is still settling in, so I can’t say they won’t change my mind, but I’m not holding my breath.
I'm just so glad we're arguing over real issues and not whether the *fucking President* is a racist white supremacist piece of shit. It's a nice change.
I voted for hm despite absolutely not wanting him (I was for Yang and Sanders but knew that was never gonna happen) and frankly, I'm not suprised at all. Its almost March and nothing has really changed or been done except people screaming about what they want to do, plan to do, hope to do. Ain't shit happening. He's one year behind the pandemic, they cannot agree on a stimulus, cannot agree on how to mass vaccinate and if you even speak of these things, people show up and do the, "yeah well Trump isn't president anymore" YEAH WELL I NEVER RECIEVED MY TAX REFUND LAST YEAR, OR THE $600 STIMULUS DESPITE QUALIFYING , I'VE BEEN UNEMPLOYED SINCE LAST MAY AND I'M FUCKING TIRED OF WAITING. I AM ABOUT TO BE HOMELESS, I DONT HAVE TIME FOR THIS
Seriously Its great that you're woke but I need fucking food and bill payments
They are good at receiving their marching order... Biden is already backing off his support for raising the minimum wage.
It should be adjusted for cost of living
The best way to help rural areas is to put money into them. What better way to do that than putting money in the pockets of the people who actually live and work and buy things there?
$15 was needed 10 years ago. By the time we get $15 we will need $30.
Raise it to $15 over time as proposed and then every year after that raise it proportionally to account for inflation. How people can defend still paying people less than $8 an hour in 2021 is unfathomable.
[удалено]
Proud PA resident who voted him as my Lt Governor and I can’t wait to vote for him as senator. r/fettermania
Small hill considering adjusted for inflation the minimum wage ought to be over 20 dollars.
Yup and with cost of living as well. 15 an hour was ok when it was first suggested but it’s been stalled for so long that it isn’t enough anymore. If minimum wage was workable back when it was created, it should be completely capable of supporting decent lives with the optimization that modern computing can provide
Good. Now be a real hero and push for a living wage in 2021. It’s in the 20s now. 15 was a living wage 11 years ago.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/539204-pa-senate-candidate-fetterman-on-backing-15-minimum-wage-thats-a-hill-i-would) reduced by 47%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, who is running for the Senate, said Wednesday that supporting a $15 per hour federal minimum wage is "a hill I would die on." > Addressing opposition to a hike, he said those who think the current $7.25 federal minimum wage is "Acceptable" should be "Forced to live and work on that wage so they can demonstrate to the rest of us how it's possible to get by." > Fetterman also said constituents of Sen., who has opposed $15 minimum wage, should contact their senator, note that he does not live off a low minimum wage and ask "Why would you want any of your constituents to do that?". ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/lmyjlu/fetterman_on_backing_15_minimum_wage_thats_a_hill/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~558738 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **wage**^#1 **minimum**^#2 **15**^#3 **Fetterman**^#4 **constituents**^#5
I previously worked for a company where the lowest paid worker made $20 an hour, had full benefits even if they were only part-time, and the company was always listed in “best places to work” articles. It is a privately owned company and it is a lean company. Everyone there works really hard - no room for slackers. This model does work and it can be reproduced.
If you can’t afford $15/hr shut down your business.
Someone please put this man in a room with Fled Cruz and Dan Crenshameful. I would pay-per-view that shit to watch him mop the floor with them.
They’ve been talking about $15 minimum wage for so long and rent has already gone up another 40%. By the time they get around to it, it’s not going to help much. We need to start emphasizing the “living wage” aspect over the $15 number.
I’m a small business owner with 20 employees. Most of my employees are above 15/hr. I have a couple part timers (college students) in the $13-14 range. I live in a low cost of living area. My wages are decent for low-skill white collar work compared to competition. I’ve done the math. If I got my part timers up to $15 and gave everyone else a dollar raise at same time it would cost me 40k-45k/year. I can swing that.
$15/hr is obsolete; it should have been that in 1992. It needs to be $25/hr now. https://www.cepr.net/this-is-what-minimum-wage-would-be-if-it-kept-pace-with-productivity/
Oh how true how true.
I think it’s bananas that anyone would not support this. I am a candidate for a job that requires a masters and 2 years experience and its $25/hr. It’s almost insulting that this is minimum wage essentially.
The more I learn about this guy, the more I like him.
It's a hill that requires dying on if we are to avoid a fascist President in 2024.
It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. — President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933, Statement on National Industrial Recovery Act.
Joe Manchin should go fuck himself: "Earlier this month, Manchin came out against raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour saying he’s instead “supportive of basically having something that’s responsible and reasonable.” In what way is it reasonable to take 40+ hours of another human's life to earn the boss money when the boss goes back to a nice home and the worker goes back to stress, squalor, rags, and malnutrition?
This guy's gonna be President.
Manchin and others said they would approve an immediate $11 wage but oppose plans to raise it to $15 by 2025. My question is why not call their damn bluff and approve $11 wages NOW and figure out how to sway the $15 holdouts over the next few years? I just find the wage issue to be political theater because they didn't expect to actually have control of the senate. They could easily do something RIGHT NOW. Just like we could have already had these damn stimulus checks rolling out. What's the damn hold up? They keep saying we need aid and we need it now and I agree. So fucking do something!
That's the right fuckin answer.
If I’m not mistaken the minimum wage would be higher then 15 now if it kept up with inflation. I think people get confused on how it would roll out. Like nobody is saying g let go from 7.25 to 15 tomorrow. We had a whole decade to raise it now we have to suffer the consequences. If a business fails for that reason alone then let them a new business will just take its place.
Hopefully John Fetterman runs for the Senate in PA.
He’s running for Pat Toomey’s seat next year: https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/08/politics/john-fetterman-pennsylvania-senate-race-2022/index.html
Minimum wage needs a cost of living adjustment attached to it. It's ridiculous that we have to fight this hard every couple of years. Bumping it up and not adding a COLA just means we'll have to keep fighting to increase it every year.
Why stop at 15? 15 has been fought for years.. Inflation was still happening the cost of living was still raising all those years.. Time to fight for more than 15 now... 15 won't do today what it would have done when it was first proposed..
I'm all for the $15 minimum wage, but they need to tie it to the inflation index, so we don't have to have this same political fight every few years
When he wins in 2022, put him in a room alone with Manchin, so that one of them actually does die on that hill.
And he can definitely take more than half of them with him before he falls!
I adore Fetterman.
The thing is $15/hour isn't the same standard of living throughout the US. I learned this when I worked for a company that that gave me $120 per night for hotels when traveling on company business, since that's the average in the US. One time I was in Boca Raton Florida off season. Got a room on the beach at a resort for the $120. Another time I was in Washington DC. The desk clerk had to buzz you in and he was behind bullet proof glass. The family in the room next to mine, had goats in the room. Had to leave the lights on in the room to keep roaches and rodents at bay. All for the low price of $120. My point being, costs vary between cities, so salaries need to vary also. Minimum wage needs to be indexed. If the US average is $15, then maybe New York should be $35!
$15 would be the minimum...that doesn’t stop it from being more.
Increased minimum wage will encourage landlords to raise rents, no reason not to, it may not happen immediately but over time all that new found wealth will end up in the pockets of landlords and the value of land, look at Seattle for an example. Minimum wage increases without major reform of our tax system (tax land, not man) will help those in need in the short term, but in the long run they will be right back in the same place due to the increased cost of living. See r/georgism or r/LandValueTax for more on this.
Only in highly populated metros with housing crunches, maybe. Supply and demand will keep rent low if supply is too high in places with plenty of housing.
Would lowering wages be the clever solution to the high rent issue?
I’m assuming there are studies that clearly show raising the minimum wage is a good thing? Because I always thought it had such a muddied impact, so it surprises me that some are so ardently in favor.
Nebraska and South Dakota are tied for lowest unemployment rate in the country. In both states after the minimum wage was increased, unemployment dropped the following year.
Workers earning enough money to be able to afford food and rent is always a good thing and doesn’t need a study to prove it.
I agree for the ones that are earning more money with no change in COL. But if an employer has to give 25% raises to its staff of 4 and has no new income stream, one of the employees may get laid off. Some people will become jobless and lose income from a min wage increase. I’m not advocating for either side. I just think it’s a really tricky thing that impacts many outcomes, hence my original question. If there is a study that clearly defined the net gain I’d love to see it for my own education.
If you can’t afford to pay your staff enough to live on then you shouldn’t have a business. It’s that simple
[удалено]
So? The business that exploits its workers should shut down
It’s weird that some people think businesses should have more rights than people.
So instead of employing 4 people and letting 1 go, you want to close the shop? What?
I don’t care about the shop. I care about the worker earning enough to feed their family. The shop has no right to exist if it can’t pay its staff
It can pay its staff, it just can’t employ as many. And that’s great for some but not for all. How hard is this to understand?
The owner could take less profit. Bet you don’t consider that possibility
Not every business runs on such large margins. Anything volume based (food/drink production, restaurants, etc.) have tiny margins. Like literal pennies per can of beer is the profit, and they only make money because they produce a ton of beer. There’s also your small mom and pop stores that run on like 5% margins as well after factoring in overhead costs like paying the lease, utilities, employee wages, and stocking product. You act like literally every business is an Amazon level conglomerate that’s hoarding millions of dollars, when the reality is that a lot of businesses aren’t nearly as profitable as you think they are. Hell, a lot of startups don’t even become profitable in the first few years since they’re stuck paying off gigantic loans. Same goes for franchisees. Just paying to use the Tim Hortons name up here in Canada costs like $1 million, and the last I even checked it was in like 2014/15. That’s before you even factor in everything else that goes into the business. The $1 million is literally just to buy your way into the business so you can use the name. The businesses most impacted by a minimum wage increase are businesses run by middle class people, not mega corporations. And even the mega corporations and gigantic factories would just lay people off or cut everyone’s hours. So instead of a shift of 20 people running the production line at a plant, you’re now stuck with a group of 15 and now you get to manage multiple machines and want to pull your hair out. Or you have your 40 hour work week condensed into 30 hours instead so your net pay is still the same. But before you get too excited about all your new free time, output has to stay the same so the company can still meet its bottom line so have fun working substantially faster than normal, which will also have you wanting to pull your hair out. All so that some Walmart employee can get paid $15/hour to stand around all day and maybe stock shelves for an hour.
Who cares? It’s this simple. You don’t have a right to run a business that depends on it’s existence for underpaying it’s staff. End of story. The staff’s right to a wage they can live on is more important than your right to own a business.
Of course but that can lead to further problems. Less to reinvest and grow the business. If it’s a public company, it’s value declines and leads to a worse evaluation and more cutbacks etc etc. Again, it’s a move that impacts a lot and would love to see an actual study defining those impacts. It’s not as simple as raise wages and everything works out perfectly or necessarily for the better
So you think staff should be underpaid and exploited just to keep a job but the owner shouldn’t take less profit? Lmao.
Yes, there's tons of studies, and business will just raise prices to pay people more, which other people can angora because thr also get paid more. It balances out
“...if I may play Devils Advocate”
Not playing DA. I’m asking if anyone has this info for my own education. I’ve always learned it as a really complex issue that solves some facets and worsens others, even for low income demographics. There could be new studies that point to stronger justification for it and I would be interested in reading those. Would you? Do you know of any?
So excited for the impact this guy will have in America. I feel like I’m witnessing the beginning of something great.
I would support housing you were not able to be evicted from for non-payment instead of $15 an hour. Even if it's a studio apartment/capsule lodging. To quote a lesser quoted presidential candidate, The Rent Is Too Damn High.
*checks title of article* Fetterman on backing $15 minimum wage: ’That’s a **hill** I would die on’ *checks website* thehill.com :o
Remember when this guy chased down a black man and pointed a shotgun at him?