# Bernie Sanders endorsing a higher minimum wage



## WiiMiiSwitch (Apr 17, 2021)

Bernie has said that ceos have to much money and that the money can be used to increase wages. He was tackled the CEO of Walmart and Amazon as they have to much money. I agree with Bernie as ceos are forgetting people have lives  I'm not a Democrat nor a Republican but I agree with  Bernie on this


----------



## Lacius (Apr 17, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Bernie has said that ceos have to much money and that the money can be used to increase wages. He was tackled the CEO of Walmart and Amazon as they have to much money. I agree with Bernie as ceos are forgetting people have lives  I'm not a Democrat nor a Republican but I agree with  Bernie on this


Nobody should work a full-time job and live in poverty. The minimum wage should be raised to at least $15. If you agree with this, you might want to start voting Democratic.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Apr 17, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Nobody should work a full-time job and live in poverty. The minimum wage should be raised to at least $15. If you agree with this, you might want to start voting Democratic.


Anyways yes, minimum wages should liveable wages. Also, I have no plans to become a Democrat


----------



## Xzi (Apr 18, 2021)

Frankly $15 still isn't enough if you're living on the East or West coast.  People already making that much currently are living out of tents in coastal states.  Should be $20/hr there, $15/hr everywhere else, and a 2% annual raise for all positions to account for inflation.

Of course any progress is a good thing and I'm not gonna poo-poo it, $7.25 as a minimum was ludicrous.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Apr 18, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Frankly $15 still isn't enough if you're living on the East or West coast.  People already making that much currently are living out of tents in coastal states.  Should be $20/hr there, $15/hr everywhere else, and a 2% annual raise for all positions to account for inflation.
> 
> Of course any progress is a good thing and I'm not gonna poo-poo it, $7.25 as a minimum was ludicrous.


Wyoming has a 5 dollar minimum wage


----------



## Xzi (Apr 18, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Wyoming has a 5 dollar minimum wage


I think the only way you can get around the $7.25 federal minimum wage is if it's a tipped position.  Still dumb of course, because tips often won't be enough to make up for that $2.25/hr difference consistently.


----------



## leon315 (Apr 18, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Nobody should work a full-time job and live in poverty. The minimum wage should be raised to at least $15. If you agree with this, you might want to start voting Democratic.


but are you OK with current administration printing so much money? we are talking about trillions of dollars out from nowhere, and if any other nations printed so much money will become as same as Venezuela.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 18, 2021)

leon315 said:


> but are you OK with current administration printing so much money? we are talking about trillions of dollars out from nowhere.


Makes no difference until inflation starts ballooning, and even then we can hold at about 2% for quite a while.  Basically all that matters is what that money is being spent on, and both the COVID relief plan and infrastructure plan are smart investments for the future.  I think it was the most recent Last Week Tonight that covered this topic.


----------



## leon315 (Apr 18, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Makes no difference until inflation starts ballooning, and even then we can hold at about 2% for quite a while.  Basically all that matters is what that money is being spent on, and both the COVID relief plan and infrastructure plan are smart investments for the future.  I think it was the most recent Last Week Tonight that covered this topic.


holy shit! i laughed my ass off when the video shows kids vow in classroom......


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 18, 2021)

Do we care what he has to say? Does he have any particular power or influence? Will next time be the time or is he just a popular face (that somehow can't otherwise compete)?

Though more generally the real answer to "what is the minimum wage?" is zero, this regardless of what your government says it actually is. If it is $15 I am going to want a lot for my money (no oldies, sick people, people of below average intelligence, disabled people, people caring for relatives that might not be able to give it their all at all hours...), and that robot is going to look a lot more attractive and a robot in India even more so.

We can look at employment rates among various demographics after rate hikes for a fun one (add in young people to the above list if you want a suggestion), and business migrations and workforces for another. Those plumping for increases here are also curious to look at -- why is the billionaire set often seen to plump for it https://fortune.com/2019/04/11/bezos-amazon-minimum-wage/ ? Most of them work people to the bone, generally oppose unions and don't do healthcare if you live in a country where such a thing matters.

There are also places without it that might be worth looking at too. Germany for instance did not have any prior to 2015.

I quite agree that taking a job that leaves you in poverty is a bad plan -- it is why I laugh at game devs taking jobs in San Francisco that still have to have housemates or do work for those part time "gig economy" despite theoretically high remuneration, and those that work all hours to afford a lifestyle that is mostly still debt fuelled. Now eating vs not eating and what skills people have that might be worth the money is an interesting equation.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 18, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Do we care what he has to say? Does he have any particular power or influence?


You might not care, but yes he's got quite a bit of actual power now as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.  Basically ensures Biden has to pass at least _some_ progressive-friendly legislation if he wants to keep getting funding for his moderate and neolib shit.



FAST6191 said:


> If it is $15 I am going to want a lot for my money (no oldies, sick people, people of below average intelligence, disabled people, people caring for relatives that might not be able to give it their all at all hours...), and that robot is going to look a lot more attractive and a robot in India even more so.


As usual, if you want employees with more than the minimum work ethic, you have to pay more than minimum wage, and that applies regardless of how many times it's raised.



FAST6191 said:


> Those plumping for increases here are also curious to look at -- why is the billionaire set often seen to plump for it https://fortune.com/2019/04/11/bezos-amazon-minimum-wage/ ? Most of them work people to the bone, generally oppose unions and don't do healthcare if you live in a country where such a thing matters.


That's precisely why corporations support minimum wage hikes: they know they can afford it, they know they're getting off cheap compared to other nations' minimums, and they believe it'll quiet discussions about unionizing for a time.


----------



## Jayro (Apr 18, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Nobody should work a full-time job and live in poverty. The minimum wage should be raised to at least $15. If you agree with this, you might want to start voting Democratic.


It's taken so long for the "fight for $15" to get moving, we now need closer 20 $27/hr to keep up with the cost of living and rent going up.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 18, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Frankly $15 still isn't enough if you're living on the East or West coast.  People already making that much currently are living out of tents in coastal states.  Should be $20/hr there, $15/hr everywhere else, and a 2% annual raise for all positions to account for inflation.
> 
> Of course any progress is a good thing and I'm not gonna poo-poo it, $7.25 as a minimum was ludicrous.


Quite frankly, if they aren't going to raise it then they should do UBI. It would be more flexible than the across the board wage increase. Of course UBI and wages should be tied to inflation, like the CPI-W index. I can't tell if wages were never tied to inflation or just done poorly, either way is ridiculous. 


$11 has been floating around. I'm sure the people not making this will take this, better than no raises at all.


----------



## Jayro (Apr 18, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> $11 has been floating around. I'm sure the people not making this will take this, better than no raises at all.


I've never lived anywhere that pays federal minimum wage, as Oregon and Washington both pay state minimum wage. My first job in 1999 paid me $7.25/hr and state minimum was $5.50 at the time.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 18, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Quite frankly, if they aren't going to raise it then they should do UBI. It would be more flexible than the across the board wage increase. Of course UBI and wages should be tied to inflation, like the CPI-W index. I can't tell if wages were never tied to inflation or just done poorly, either way is ridiculous.


Oh it's gonna get raised to $15, probably incrementally, but Sanders isn't gonna give up this fight.  UBI I think will be tied more to a tax on automation as that becomes more prevalent, as Andrew Yang has suggested.  Thing is: the vast majority of jobs in the US are already service industry positions, and _most_ of those require a human touch.  We'll have to wait and see.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 18, 2021)

Well, all my jobs was above minimum wage, just didn't quite make it to $11.


Xzi said:


> Oh it's gonna get raised to $15, probably incrementally, but Sanders isn't gonna give up this fight.  UBI I think will be tied more to a tax on automation as that becomes more prevalent, as Andrew Yang has suggested.  Thing is: the vast majority of jobs in the US are already service industry positions, and _most_ of those require a human touch.  We'll have to wait and see.


They keep playing games, eventually more states are going to get tired of it and raise it themselves. 


UBI funds have to be general. I'm pretty sure Yang's plan mainly relies on a Vat Tax. Otherwise people will fight on what' "automation" is and it would disincentivize automation. Not to mention, UBI would help people in general and not just soften the blow when more jobs are automated away.


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 18, 2021)

Bernie aka the biggest loser that they stole his primary 2 times


----------



## Xzi (Apr 18, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> They keep playing games, eventually more states are going to get tired of it and raise it themselves.


A good portion of states already have minimum wages higher than the federal one, gotta drag the rest kicking and screaming to help the most people possible though.



KingVamp said:


> UBI funds have to be general. I'm pretty sure Yang's plan mainly relies on a Vat Tax. Otherwise people will fight on what' "automation" is and it would disincentivize automation. Not to mention, UBI would help people in general and not just soften the blow when more jobs are automated away.


True, a UBI would be helpful this very moment, as a concept it's just much harder to sell to the general populace without also discussing the looming threat of mass automation, let alone the political class.  It might be something that's easier to get started on a state-by-state basis, like marijuana legalization was.


----------



## Taleweaver (Apr 18, 2021)

It would be a step in the right direction, yes. Iirc, it's not even about redistribution of wealth (though that's certainly a major asset) but just a fair catching up to the current state of living.

Otherwise said : minimum wage isn't enough to cover minimal expenses. And that's what makes this situation hugely important and probably critical. Because if you're working two (full time) jobs to make ends meet, it means you're stealing someone else's work. Whereas both those jobs should at least be enough for basic living.

But to be fair... Didn't this proposal already strand in the senate or house? I remember reading something about a handful democrats voting together with the Republicans. 

Whether ceo's loans are too high is a different discussion. Since they own the company, I can't blame them for coding their own loan. So artificially capping it isn't a good idea. Rather, there should be systems in place that naturally reduce this. A higher minimum wage most likely helps (since the amount of money a company makes, you can't change one without the other), but a more progressive tax plan would be better. Unfortunately the US isn't just lacking in that department but goes in the opposite direction.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 18, 2021)

Taleweaver said:


> But to be fair... Didn't this proposal already strand in the senate or house? I remember reading something about a handful democrats voting together with the Republicans.


Bernie tried to have a $15 minimum wage included in the COVID relief bill, but some Dems wanted it discussed and voted on as its own issue.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 18, 2021)

Xzi said:


> You might not care, but yes he's got quite a bit of actual power now as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.  Basically ensures Biden has to pass at least _some_ progressive-friendly legislation if he wants to keep getting funding for his moderate and neolib shit.
> 
> 
> As usual, if you want employees with more than the minimum work ethic, you have to pay more than minimum wage, and that applies regardless of how many times it's raised.
> ...


I didn't know he was chucked a bone as far as a position. Thought he was just an also ran and in that case could have been dismissed or at least relegated to (figure)head of a particular wing of the US democratic party.

So minimum wage is basically ineffective or some virtual equivalent of inflation happens to match? How amusing.

They know they are getting off cheap or they know it fucks with their competition (large and small) that does have staffing as a major cost?


----------



## laudern (Apr 18, 2021)

With all of the unskilled, low wage seeking illegal immigrants that the democrats love letting into the country, you're more likely to see the minimum wage be decreased, not increased.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 18, 2021)

leon315 said:


> but are you OK with current administration printing so much money? we are talking about trillions of dollars out from nowhere, and if any other nations printed so much money will become as same as Venezuela.


I don't think the United States should print so much money, since long-term inflation is effectively a regressive tax that affects the poor as much, if not more than, the rich. Instead of printing so much money, we should just be taxing the rich more. That all being said, money-printing isn't even close to the top of my list of worries.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



laudern said:


> With all of the unskilled, low wage seeking illegal immigrants that the democrats love letting into the country, you're more likely to see the minimum wage be decreased, not increased.


Even illegal immigrants should be able to make a livable wage.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Taleweaver said:


> It would be a step in the right direction, yes. Iirc, it's not even about redistribution of wealth (though that's certainly a major asset) but just a fair catching up to the current state of living.
> 
> Otherwise said : minimum wage isn't enough to cover minimal expenses. And that's what makes this situation hugely important and probably critical. Because if you're working two (full time) jobs to make ends meet, it means you're stealing someone else's work. Whereas both those jobs should at least be enough for basic living.
> 
> ...


Some Democrats in the Senate voted against a $15 minimum wage because the Senate parliamentarian said it couldn't be in a budget reconciliation bill, not because they were inherently against the $15 minimum wage. If they really wanted it though, they could have voted for it and let Vice President Harris overrule the parliamentarian (we have no evidence she would have for sure done this), but it was probably convenient for a lot of these Senators to have the cover of voting against it for purely procedural reasons when they're from competitive states.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Valwinz said:


> Bernie aka the biggest loser that they stole his primary 2 times


There's an argument to be made that in the 2016 Democratic primary, Sanders was treated somewhat unfairly (superdelegates, few debates and at stupid times, Clinton receiving questions early, etc.), but I'm not sure how anything was stolen from him in 2020.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 18, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> So minimum wage is basically ineffective or some virtual equivalent of inflation happens to match? How amusing.


Inflation's never been nearly that out of control in this country, otherwise we would've had a Greek-style economic collapse on our hands.  Still, it does eat a bit of the average worker's paycheck every year it goes unaccounted for.  Only very specific white-collar positions give out annual raises to counter it.



FAST6191 said:


> They know they are getting off cheap or they know it fucks with their competition (large and small) that does have staffing as a major cost?


This is why you have separate assistance programs for small businesses, but large corporations squashed anything that could've been considered real competition long ago.  No mom and pop store is suddenly gonna run Wal-Mart or McDonald's out of town, so we might as well ensure they aren't also cheating taxpayers by forcing their employees to go on food stamps or welfare to survive.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Apr 18, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Nobody should work a full-time job and live in poverty. The minimum wage should be raised to at least $15. If you agree with this, you might want to start voting Democratic.


But to be honest, democrats are a disappointment.
Flip-flopping mercenaries that speak nice words but don't keep any promises.
Evil pretenders in disguise.

TBH my feelings as late... Not that I can propose a good alternative, but the fact one can't suggest a good alternative doesn't make them any good.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 18, 2021)

This 'issue' is a non-issue.

The number of employed persons in the United States making the federal minimum wage or less is under 3% of all workers. In 1979, it was over 13%.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2017/home.htm#:~:text=The percentage of hourly paid,collected on a regular basis.


Minimum wage exists for the purpose of entering the workforce when you're 16-20 years old and have no skillset or experience. Very, very few jobs pay minimum wage. If you're 40 years old and making minimum, you dun fucked up your life somewhere and you're just taking that position away from an ambitious young person who is trying to get started.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 18, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> This 'issue' is a non-issue.
> 
> The number of employed persons in the United States making the federal minimum wage or less is under 3% of all workers. In 1979, it was over 13%.
> 
> ...


The federal minimum wage is $7.25, so that's a low bar to clear. The percentage of Americans making less than $15 an hour is 28% (in 2019).

The average age of a worker who would benefit from raising the minimum wage is 35. 88% of people who would benefit from raising the minimum wage are 20 years old or older. 36% are 40 or older. 28% have children.

You should probably spend more time reading up on the issue and less time judging people.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 18, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The federal minimum wage is $7.25, so that's a low bar to clear. The percentage of Americans making less than $15 an hour is 28% (in 2019).
> 
> The average age of a worker who would benefit from raising the minimum wage is 35. 88% of people who would benefit from raising the minimum wage are 20 years old or older. 36% are 40 or older. 28% have children.
> 
> You should probably spend more time reading up on the issue and less time judging people.




I don't care how old the people making minimum wage are. I care that they make up less than 2.5% of the workforce. I care that they are in jobs that are not intended, never have been intended, for breadwinners. Those jobs are intended for dependents who are just getting into the workforce with no experience, no skills. If a 35 year old person is in that predicament because they spent the last 17 years in some illicit or unmarketable occupation, that's their problem not everyone else's. Bad choices have consequences.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 18, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> I care that they are in jobs that are not intended, never have been intended, for breadwinners. Those jobs are intended for dependents who are just getting into the workforce with no experience, no skills. If a 35 year old person is in that predicament because they spent the last 17 years in some illicit or unmarketable occupation, that's their problem not everyone else's. Bad choices have consequences.


Upward mobility becomes more and more scarce in this country with every passing decade.  Basically you're telling people they should've climbed a nonexistent ladder when they had the chance.  If you're born poor in Bumfuck, Kentucky, odds are high that you can make all the right decisions in life and still end up working fast food in your 50s or 60s.

Additionally, as long as it remains $7.25, people can be making quite a bit more than minimum wage and still fall below the poverty line.  If you don't want their wages to continue being subsidized by your tax dollars, I suggest you start demanding corporations pay their workers fairly.  Fast food jobs are some of the hardest there are, they demand much more productivity than the vast majority of six-figure desk jobs.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 18, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Upward mobility becomes more and more scarce in this country with every passing decade.



If by upward mobility you mean a gradual increase in income level from entry pay at a young age to comfortable income levels at retirement (which would be the only way it could be relevant to this discussion), then I disagree. If that were really true, the percentage of workers making minimum wage would be higher now than in 1979. Instead, it's dramatically lower.

Alternatively if by upward mobility you mean moving from lower middle class $50-$80k a year to upper middle class $500-$750k a year in one generation, then yeah it might be more difficult now. Might be. That's what I've always understood upward mobility to mean. But if so, that's a different discussion that has nothing to do with minimum wage.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 18, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> If that were really true, the percentage of workers making minimum wage would be higher now than in 1979. Instead, it's dramatically lower.


Minimum wage in 1979 was somewhat tolerable still.  In 2021 you can be making three dollars more than minimum and still be living out of a tent or homeless shelter.



Hanafuda said:


> If by upward mobility you mean moving from lower middle class $50-$80k a year to upper middle class $500-$750k a year in one generation, then yeah it might be more difficult now. Might be. That's what I've always understood upward mobility to mean. But if so, that's a different discussion that has nothing to do with minimum wage.


It has everything to do with minimum wage.  Our parents and grandparents were able to build up _savings_ while working minimum wage jobs.  Now they don't even cover all of the necessities, let alone allow you to save up for a house or a car.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 18, 2021)

Xzi said:


> It has everything to do with minimum wage.  Our parents and grandparents were able to build up _savings_ while working minimum wage jobs.  Now they don't even cover all of the necessities, let alone allow you to save up for a house or a car.



Saving up for a house or car while making minimum wage? Sure, a p.o.s. used car maybe, if you were still living with mom and dad and didn't have any other expenses.  

Don't forget you're talking to someone in his mid 50's. I was there in that past you're talking about.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 18, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Saving up for a house or car while making minimum wage? Sure, a p.o.s. used car maybe, if you were still living with mom and dad and didn't have any other expenses.


If we extrapolate the minimum wage of the 1950s to today, it would be about $22/hour when accounting for inflation and increases in productivity (not-so-coincidentally that's also about the minimum in France).  That's definitely enough to save for a car, and not just an old beater.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 18, 2021)

Wikipedia (citing the US Dept of Labor as the source) says the minimum wage buying power peaked in 1968, when the minimum of $1.60 was equivalent to $11.76 in 2019.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States


----------



## notimp (Apr 18, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Wikipedia (citing the US Dept of Labor as the source) says the minimum wage buying power peaked in 1968, when the minimum of $1.60 was equivalent to $11.76 in 2019.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States


Lets add, that this was done, because globalization also reduced the cost of goods and services, so people could be convinced, that they were still participating in growth and experiencing prosperity. Issue, that doesnt hold true for all sectors (housing, ..), and it only works, when global trade is uninterrupted and active.

And the issue still remains, that the average american wasnt getting their share of productivity growth.

So when the first bigger crisis hit, interest rates were slashed, and most of the Service economy now worked to keep consumption up. Which doesnt bode well for the later parts of their lives - if 'nothing changes'.

So as people come to realize what happened, you need avenues of structural growth, that are open to them, or they will revolt.

Trump (rest his simple minded soul) tried to convince everyone - that tax cuts would fix the issue and bring in more entrepreneurial spirit -- aaaand they did nothing. Partly because he mostly cut taxes of the rich, and when he reduced corporate taxes, they took the money and started share buyback programs and stock investing - which did nothing for people.

Reason? There was no clear path in what to invest within the US that seemed viable and logical - long term. Other countries were growing faster, producing most of your goods cheaper, and you had ready made plans, on how to bring them closer to your level - using the tech that already existed.

By "closing your borders" that problem doesnt go away. By 'ruining/slowing down' internatinonal trade flows - it gets somewhat mitigated (supply chains become smaller), but the issue here is, that the international trading system is so interconnected by now - that its hard to hurt the other side you might want to draw up tarrifs against, but not yourself in the process - in the reaction that follows, and unforseen consequences.

In addition, if companies are forced to restructure their supply chains, they will do so looking at other ways to cut cost - so automation, digitization, ...

So the answer in some way or form has to be to 'create the next new thing' and make it something only the US / developed world can do - and make it something that most of your people can benefit from.

The obvious answer to that one is 'infrastructure investments', as it can be low skilled, but enables better synergies for the high skilled work (everyone has internet, roads that work, ...). And invest in education at the same time.

Issue - that costs all the moneys. So the state has to do it, and do it through stuctural investments. (Kicking the puck on who pays for it further down the road.)

But you need it to foster the climate, where the Investor class starts to invest in the US again - otherwise, their growth potential elsewhere in the world is always bigger. But if you create the next big thing... That can then be scaled all over the world and...

But for that to actually work (become operational), you ideally need a growth market. And the US has them in Mexico and now in a more active trading relationship with india.

Now this means, that in the long term - they will take the easier to produce parts of the supplychain again - and you will be forced to innovate to stay ahead. But the growth potential is there, the investment climate is there, US population isnt declining as fast as others, which is a positive...

Last point - so while the state is paying for the infrastructure projects (lower skill level), the question remains, how fast production of your new industries will be moved to lets say Mexico and India, and the answer here is - fast, because - there it has bigger growth potential (can produced cheaper, so more people can buy it - which increases your profit) - so at some point, we have to talk about redistribution.

You need to talk about redistribution from another angle as well - and that is, that more complex jobs, actually profit from people that have to worry less about their environments and future - so thinking about universal health care actually might be more economic for the US, because "grafting" gets you less far, than thinking.

And if you dont reign in the companies, that literally havent payed for productivity increases inside the US  for 30 years - they will simply repeat it, and eff you over again..  To be fair to them, productivity increases in the US also - somewhat became less of a part of human work dividend, and more and more were produced by machines, or in foreign contreys - where investing simply promised higher returns.

So that you need to tackle as well.

The Biden administration does all that btw. - and pretty much all economists right now tell them, that its the right thing to do.
--

How you do it in countries that arent as well off as the US (Demographics, country to develop at your borders, low energy costs, ...) is the more difficult question to answer.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 18, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Wikipedia (citing the US Dept of Labor as the source) says the minimum wage buying power peaked in 1968, when the minimum of $1.60 was equivalent to $11.76 in 2019.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States


That's not accounting for inflation or increases in productivity, but at least you're acknowledging that the current federal minimum should be _at least_ five dollars higher.  There were also far more/better government assistance programs in the 50s and 60s.

Even if everything had always been as shitty as it is now, that's no reason to say, "nah let's not improve anything for anybody even though we can."


----------



## Lacius (Apr 18, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> I don't care how old the people making minimum wage are. I care that they make up less than 2.5% of the workforce. I care that they are in jobs that are not intended, never have been intended, for breadwinners. Those jobs are intended for dependents who are just getting into the workforce with no experience, no skills. If a 35 year old person is in that predicament because they spent the last 17 years in some illicit or unmarketable occupation, that's their problem not everyone else's. Bad choices have consequences.


The percentage of Americans making less than $15 an hour is 28%


----------



## Valwinz (Apr 19, 2021)

*I am once again asking for your financial support says Bernie for the third time scaming people*


----------



## Xzi (Apr 19, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> *I am once again asking for your financial support says Bernie for the third time scaming people*


Yeah that's almost the exact opposite of what's happening here.  Your reading comprehension must suck ass.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 19, 2021)

Xzi said:


> That's not accounting for inflation or increases in productivity, but *at least you're acknowledging that the current federal minimum should be at least five dollars higher.*  There were also far more/better government assistance programs in the 50s and 60s.
> 
> Even if everything had always been as shitty as it is now, that's no reason to say, "nah let's not improve anything for anybody even though we can."



What I'm quite willing to acknowledge is that the buying power of the minimum wage should be at least five dollars higher. Yes, sure, hear hear! It should be. I just don't think increasing the number will accomplish anything but price inflation, and a gradual adjustment in the value of the dollar and wages across the board, until we return to status quo or worse. The buying power of the minimum wage in 1968 wasn't higher because of some arbitrary dollar figure - it was higher because it was 1968. US manufacturing and productivity was top of the world, and single income blue collar household was the norm, and we were still on the gold standard.

You can increase the minimum wage to 15 dollars, and it wont take long until the McDonalds meal that currently costs $7.25 will cost ... you guessed it, 15 dollars. The person who is making 15 dollars now will expect their income to double, or else why did they bother climbing up from minimum to 15?? The person making 30 will not be happy, because someone who was making 15 yesterday now makes the same 30 bucks he does. So all wages adjust upward, but with diminishing effect. The end result, after several years for it to settle, for manufacturers and retailers to adjust their prices to the new labor costs, is the poor will still be just as poor, the middle/working-class will be a little poorer than they are now, and the rich will still have it all. It's a rigged game and they're not going to give up anything ... just blow smoke up your ass with number games.

I know, you're gonna say that won't happen. You'll say there've been studies and there are economists who swear the economy won't simply adjust and compensate. So if that's true, what do you think would happen if we change the minimum wage to, let's say $100/hr? Or since it's $7.25 now, how about $725/hr?? What happens when the lowest paid person makes $725/hr? Is everyone happy making $725 an hour, same as the lowest paid guy, even the doctors, lawyers, engineers? What does a company like Wendy's do when they have to pay their employees $725/hr? Still think there'll be a dollar menu? Maybe there'll be a hundred dollar menu.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 19, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> I just don't think increasing the number will accomplish anything but price inflation, and a gradual adjustment in the value of the dollar and wages across the board, until we return to status quo or worse.


We're at less than 1% inflation per year currently, it doesn't have such an immediate impact no matter what happens to the minimum wage.



Hanafuda said:


> You can increase the minimum wage to 15 dollars, and it wont take long until the McDonalds meal that currently costs $7.25 will cost ... you guessed it, 15 dollars.


This is assuming we already pay workers roughly the same amount of value they generate for the company, but the reality is that there's a huge gap there.  As I said before, the minimum wage in France is closer to $20 USD, and their McD's burgers and fries cost about 60 cents more on average.



Hanafuda said:


> So if that's true, what do you think would happen if we change the minimum wage to, let's say $100/hr? Or since it's $7.25 now, how about $725/hr??


What would happen if unicorns shit candy?  There's no point in posing wild hypotheticals, it's been hard enough fighting for a living minimum wage just above the poverty line as-is.  The corporations have armies of lobbyists at their disposal, regular working class people do not.


----------



## Seliph (Apr 19, 2021)

Minimum wage should be $69 (⌐■_■)


----------



## Joe88 (Apr 19, 2021)

Xzi said:


> As I said before, the minimum wage in France is closer to $20


france's minimum wage is about $12 usd
https://wageindicator.org/salary/minimum-wage/france
https://www.expatica.com/fr/working/employment-law/france-minimum-wage-982310/

not sure where you are getting the $20 usd number from


----------



## Xzi (Apr 19, 2021)

Joe88 said:


> france's minimum wage is about $12 usd
> https://wageindicator.org/salary/minimum-wage/france
> https://www.expatica.com/fr/working/employment-law/france-minimum-wage-982310/
> 
> not sure where you are getting the $20 usd number from


So it is.  I'm not sure where I picked up the false number either, but maybe it was accounting for other benefits such as healthcare.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 19, 2021)

Xzi said:


> This is assuming we already pay workers roughly the same amount of value they generate for the company, but the reality is that there's a huge gap there.



Raising the minimum wage won't change that. Prices will be adjusted to keep the margin.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 19, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Raising the minimum wage won't change that. Prices will be adjusted to keep the margin.


They can't adjust prices in that manner, the only thing McD's and Wal-Mart have going for them is how cheap they are.  They've been making historic profits year over year, that wouldn't change even if the minimum wage was quadrupled.  Which again begs the question of why you'd bother defending exploitation, considering it's your tax dollars that have to make up the difference for poverty wages.


----------



## Seliph (Apr 19, 2021)

Do prices just magically raise on their own when the minimum wage is raised? Who is raising these prices? A spooky invisible hand that manipulates the market? An evil little price-raising gnome that hates workers who just want fair compensation?

Of course not, it's the people with billions upon billions of dollars who don't want to see their profit margins hurt, they're the ones who choose prices, they're the ones who choose how much you get paid.

This brings about a fundamental issue with Capitalism and with the wage question in general.

If we want to compensate workers more, their employers will simply make things cost more. If we want things to cost less, employers will pay their workers less. The market isn't some magical force that magically makes prices fluctuate all on its own, there are always people on top of the big ol pyramid scheme who choose how much someone should be paid or how much something should be paid for.

This is a problem because Capitalism creates a fundamental relationship between worker and employer that is diametrically opposed - employer wants to make the most profit for the least expenditure but employee wants to make the highest wage with the least amount of expenditure (labor intensity or labor hours or both). These two goals fundamentally cannot coexist. Because money = power and employers are the ones with the most money, they are always going to be the ones that win out in a situation like this because they are the ones who dictate the market and politics in general as I stated earlier, because employers are *dictators*. You cannot seek fair worker compensation without a fundamental overhaul of the current system - a shifting of power from the rich owning class to the everyday working class.

This is why I see the minimum wage question as one that doesn't have an answer (or at least it doesn't have a good answer for anyone that isn't an employer) and I think it ultimately misses the point. Because we always view this argument through the lens of the magical market that magically changes prices based on magical variables like how much someone gets paid when in reality it is never that simple because we know deep down that the market (even a supposedly "free" market) is always controlled by a certain group of people, Capitalists.

You want more money? Capitalists are just gonna raise prices so it doesn't matter. You want to work less? Capitalists are just gonna cut your pay or make you work faster so it doesn't matter.

So while simple reforms like a raise in minimum wage or a shortened workweek (think of how we used to have to work 12 hours or more a day during the industrial era but now we mostly work 8 hours or less) are great, they simply aren't enough. Capitalists will always find a way to weasel through these reforms, to keep a hold of their dragon hoard of accrued capital. Because the system is designed to empower them at the expense of yourself and that will always be how it is until we find a better way to organize labor and society as a whole.

That's basic dialectics for ya, and I think it's also a more realistic viewpoint on this issue. It is naive to assume that a simple rise in wage will solve our problems or that a rise in wage is even realistic in our current system, but it is also naive to assume that prices raised as a result of a rise in wage just spontaneously happen because the magical market made it happen. The whims of the market are all planned and dictated by a group of people who want to accrue more and more and more wealth, and we know who these people are because we're forced to work for them every day of our lives while they leech off our wages time and time again to no avail.


----------



## PiracyForTheMasses (Apr 19, 2021)

Xzi said:


> So it is.  I'm not sure where I picked up the false number either, but maybe it was accounting for other benefits such as healthcare.


Might want to get educated on the subject instead of going around spreading false information like a brainless sheep.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 19, 2021)

PiracyForTheMasses said:


> Might want to get educated on the subject instead of going around spreading false information like a brainless sheep.


Brainless sheep defend and advocate for the corporations fighting to keep their wages low.  Or blame people making less than them when they can't move up the ladder.


----------



## notimp (Apr 19, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> What I'm quite willing to acknowledge is that the buying power of the minimum wage should be at least five dollars higher. Yes, sure, hear hear! It should be. I just don't think increasing the number will accomplish anything but price inflation, and a gradual adjustment in the value of the dollar and wages across the board, until we return to status quo or worse.


Inflation is driven by the expectancy of rising wages, or price setting.

Price setting theory says, that as companies are setting prices (in expectancy of higher economic growth), trade unions, or the worker itself are going into salary negotiations, also driving higher salaries. As thats not what happened in the past 30 years (price deflation through globalization), we have to look at the other theory which says that growth expectancy is driving inflation. Issue - it has to be growth expectancy that lifts all boats, and that is sustained for that to happen. What you actually have seen is the opposite (two barista jobs to sustain...), so its actually become harder to keep an inflation target of 2% ("or higher").

See:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53933239
US historically:
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/inflation-rate-cpi

What essentially is happening is, that the money pumped into the economy is centralizing pretty quickly, without it making much impact on the 'real economy'. (More money is made through financial speculation, or investments in foreign developments - so what ever you pump in, doesnt end up with workers or employees - therefore no exploding inflation.) The rich become richer, but they cant spend gains on consumption (another boat?), and they wont invest in ventures in your own country that would allow workers and employees to parttake in growth expectancy (= you dont need most people, which is why you make sure you are employing more and more folks in a service economy close at the minimal wage level and have millennials spend what they earn on consumption and not their future). So higher inflation isnt happening so far - instead, everyone got kind of afraid of revolts in the US, because perceived quality of living declined.

"But state printed so much money into the crisis -" Yes, and that either ended up with corporations that wont invest into growth because of it, and people, that consumed it away - during a period, where consumption was way down - because of covid. If it would end up with common folks in mass - there could be inflation expectancy - but it isnt.


On the minimum wage is bad point. FIrst - purchasing power parity of 5 USD is coocoo.








> Wages at the 90th percentile increased across demographic groups, ranging from rates of 14.0% (Hispanic workers) to 70.6% (women). Overall, wages at the 90th percentile increased from an estimated $39.14 to $55.29 (a 41.3% increase) over the 40 years between 1979 and 2019, but the growth rate was not constant. After increasing by $5.10 ($39.14 to $44.24) over the 20 years from 1979 to 1999, wages at the 90th percentile grew by an estimated $11.05 over the 20 years from 1999 to 2019. 12 Median wage trends were not uniform across demographic groups, with wages decreasing for some groups (e.g., men and Hispanic workers) but increasing for others (e.g., women). Overall, median wages increased from an estimated $21.14 to $23.00 (a 8.8% increase) over the 1979 to 2019 period. Wages at the 10th percentile followed a similar pattern (i.e., declining for men and Hispanic worker groups, but rising for others). Overall, wages at the 10th percentile increased in real terms from an estimated $11.27 to $12.00 (a 6.5% increase). To explore how real wage trends evolved over the 1979 to 2019 period, Figure 1 shows annualized wage growth rates over various time periods (roughly a decade each) by wage percentile and demographic group


src: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45090.pdf

90% percentile means - you scored better than 90% of the population.

So - the income for the lowest 10% of society actually was stable at 12 USD (purchasing power, so inflation adjusted) for the past 40 years - while GDP grew 8 fold. And prices 3 fold ( https://www.worlddata.info/america/usa/inflation-rates.php ). (Actually looked up those numbers) - factor out price increases (8 divided by 3), and the poorest 10% are 2.6 times poorer now than they were in 1979 - if it werent for lower prices on imported goods of daily life. And lower production costs.

Thats trickle down economics. But also thats globalization. (Average prices for goods come down, you get richer because more people can buy them - at the same time your markets increasingly become global - on which you are not paying taxes - and you certainly arent paying your workers more - so the lowest 10% of society (income wise) get nothing of the growth you produced, the middle class (median wages) get nothing of what you produced, and the top 10% get an increase in earnings by 43%. Purchasing power adjusted.)

Do you now understand, why "inflation" (everyone has more money to spend, so prices increase) isnt what everyone is worrying about?

Second point. Raising minimum wages forces factory owners and companies to innovate - (watch Peter Zeihan on Citrus growing  ( h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLKbn8IeNTk ) - "You will not get any more cheap labor.") to be able to pay them - for the first time in a long time, actually creating growth dynamic, where investments would be made domestically as well -- if you would actually call BS and move all your investments to foreign territories, "because thats outrageous" you now get hit by minimum taxes ( https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...-companies-countries/articleshow/82070767.cms ) and you've put yourself in a downward spiral - because it becomes that much harder, to do research and development in developing countries. So essentially, you are killing your business within your lifetime - and thats not taking into account, that you might be "out innovated".. 

So thats the pro argument for a higher minimum wage. (Way above 5USD purchasing power adjusted, btw - because f*ck you, work with real numbers for once and not just with misantrop "what I think must be enough to sustain" figures of your imagination.)

Counter argument - you cant do that currently, because you are coming out of an acute crisis. So raising minimum wage means, the companies that dont make it shed employees, which is the opposite of what you'd want to happen currently. So thats not happening anytime soon - and you have to find other cogs to turn to get to the same result. (In this case, global minimum tax, and infrastructure investments in the US -- which also should lead to an innovation push within the US --

whats left is the issue, of 'where the low skilled workers are' once infrastructure spending (state money) runs out. And if companies havent found a way to upskill or integrate them in their "growth story" - you'll have issues.

Or you need to talk more about "automation taxes" - and universal basic income, which imho is not the best way to go -)


Whats entirely bonkers in the current situation is to proclaim, that the influx of low payed workers is your problem (do you want to work as orange pickers?), or to tell everyone, that lazy people that are living "too good" on minimum wages are the problem.

Also you cant just destroy globalization and call it a day (then everything would be produced in the US again!), because that would topple the economic system. You can set the incentives differently and get people to invest in the US again - but that also takes state money (structural investments). If you'd only work with "whips" on investors - that might increase the "f'k you" factor..  So you work with both. (Incentives and taxes.)

Also kind of by now - corporations have realized, that the whole story has reached people, so they might either invest in racial revolts to keep them occupied (  ) or try to do something about it - because an entire generation is starting to believe more and more, that capitalism isnt working for them anymore..

(So what you usually do as corp is to tell people "everyone can become app millionaire" and call it a day. (New innovation field ("its now become accessible to more people"), with new _global_ growth dynamics, where you can siphen off money on structures up top ("we provide the Amazon Web Storage and computing"). For it to become a little more just, usually you need state involvement. The diversity play - largely is there to be sure to make products and services, that also could scale in India, and with women in india, and... so thats also a proposed growth driver.

But then overall you might need consumption reduction, because of climate change and stuff..

Now square that circle..  )


----------



## notimp (Apr 19, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Raising the minimum wage won't change that. Prices will be adjusted to keep the margin.


Over time -

Lets say FED keeps inflation stable at 2%, but you raised minimum wages by more than 2%.

If you increase product prices by more than 2% - and your competitor has the puffer not to, you get pushed out of the market, and they get more market share. How can they do so - because, they have higher productivity (or better credit score), how do you get higher productivity or better credit score? You invest in innovation (if you have the reserves).

Issue out of the crisis, this might cost more jobs shortterm (companies that dont make it), so its not what any administration will implement currently. (Raises social costs moreso, than if people remain in work. Shortterm. Long term tax earnings should increase, because you are triggering an investment push.)

Also, while its not eaten up by price inflation, higher minimum wages lead to more innovation on the grass roots level (upstarts), because for a time people have more money to spend on 'interesting new stuff'.
Then it gets eaten up by inflation.

But then again, out of the Covid crisis, you will not propose higher minimum wages, because you are actually worried, if restructuring can keep up with job losses (short term), so to push for more people potentially losing their jobs, is not going to happen currently.

edit:

The Biden plan to raise federal minimum wage ( https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/14/bid...-wage-would-boost-growth-oecd-april-2021.html ) is a way around that. Government can afford to raise wages - they wont go bankrupt (US isnt greece, yet.  ). As a result they draw in more talent, than if the private sector _wont_ follow - so private sector gets worse talent if they do not also raise wages.

They wont raise wages - if they cant (without becoming bankrupt) - but as you turned the entire economy to become more geared towards investments (international minimum taxes, state investments into infrastructure), 'best talent' is what you would want _right now_ at a premium. So private sector - if they can - might follow. Also raising wages, ...

And inflation risk wont follow - because other companies cant (without going bankrupt), and raising prices in goods of daily life (inflation driver), can not be implemented to compensate, without raising risk of social unrest. So inflation wont rise. Probably. Theoretically.

At the worst, you are getting better talent into federal jobs - which nevertheless is needed, once infrastructure spending runs out - as explained above.. 

So no 'general minimum wage' - but again the push for innovate and invest now - or die (get outcompeted, outinvested by your competition, because now is the time to do so...).

Its not decided yet - because risk of companies trying to become more competitive by shedding workers is real, out of the crisis.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 19, 2021)

Xzi said:


> They can't adjust prices in that manner, *the only thing McD's *and Wal-Mart* have going for them is how cheap they are.*  They've been making historic profits year over year, that wouldn't change even if the minimum wage was quadrupled.  Which again begs the question of why you'd bother defending exploitation, considering it's your tax dollars that have to make up the difference for poverty wages.



Not true. There is also the Filet-o-fish.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 19, 2021)

Xzi said:


> We're at less than 1% inflation per year currently, it doesn't have such an immediate impact no matter what happens to the minimum wage.


What are you using to measure inflation that you are getting 1%?

If the plight of the poor unfortunates that never landed a marketable skill is indeed such a concern of yours I would have thought you would have been all about that rental cost (I would say mortgage but... hahaha, though home prices are similarly iffy if it is even a possibility. San Francisco is something of a special case https://experimental-geography.blogspot.com/2016/05/employment-construction-and-cost-of-san.html but has some good data, have a more averaged one if you want https://www.areavibes.com/library/rent-vs-ownership/ ), medical costs, fuel expense (even more so if you want to consider an expectation of travel that many endure these days, said minimum wage types tending also not to be those that can lounge around in their boxers doing remote work) and other such things.

Beyond that the consumer price index of various forms is somewhat dubious. Better than nothing but they do things to tweak numbers (at one point say toothpaste was a thing then while before it would have possibly been a branded toothpaste of a given volume today it might be supermarket mouthburner) and often exclude the more interesting things such as above.
Even if we were to contemplate it then 1% is dubious
https://www.bls.gov/charts/consumer-price-index/consumer-price-index-by-category.htm

That said I am still not sure what problem raising the minimum wage would solve, if it has really ever solved anything and those downsides from the earlier reply (really if I have to pay you are not going to be old, single parent, unskilled, with alternative commitments be it part time job or caring for someone, disabled, sick or whatever saving those times where I absolutely just need bodies or one of the previous means you will be a worker drone that just turns up and does the job before going and will not leave me having to go through the arse ache that is recruiting, and I will be looking favourably at those robots that are only getting cheaper, more capable and otherwise better) are still in consideration.
Minimum wage, assuming it did something vaguely approximating working as some imagine it here, would at best be a stop gap. I would rather see pressures change things rather than being artificially hopped up -- the palatial houses of US suburbia and debt financed culture being one of the many symptoms. This also assumes it is possible -- ignoring the medical costs rising because we can do more than soup and a round of antibiotics (though cost of sitting in a ward with others guzzling soup and antibiotics has rather climbed as well) then was the whole house in the 'burbs thing been a fantasy cooked up by people enjoying being a global hegemon following a nice big war that took out the competition and later financed by debt on both today that they knew they would never live to repay and taxing future generations? Today Europe has rebuilt itself, Russia is kind of something again, Asia has done enough to be a player and even third world shitholes are actually not that bad in a lot of cases (not to mention also have robots -- was watching a nice report on Bangladesh a while back and rather than hire workers to to make the stylish worn jeans that fashion victims wear they got a robot in instead which could do it for longer, faster and more consistently).


----------



## Xzi (Apr 19, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> That said I am still not sure what problem raising the minimum wage would solve, if it has really ever solved anything and those downsides from the earlier reply (really if I have to pay you are not going to be old, single parent, unskilled, with alternative commitments be it part time job or caring for someone, disabled, sick or whatever saving those times where I absolutely just need bodies or one of the previous means you will be a worker drone that just turns up and does the job before going and will not leave me having to go through the arse ache that is recruiting, and I will be looking favourably at those robots that are only getting cheaper, more capable and otherwise better) are still in consideration.


It's pretty obvious which problems it's meant to solve, first and foremost the problem of people working 40 hours a week and still living in poverty.  Secondly corporations' dependence on food stamps and welfare programs to subsidize their ridiculously low wages.

And again, good luck holding out for the candidate who shows up early to work fast food every day in a suit and tie.  You'd be searching and waiting until the day your franchise shuts down.  The robots are still quite a ways off too, at least if you want them functioning as intended 24/7 (NSFW).


----------



## chrisrlink (Apr 19, 2021)

meanwhile Jeff bozo of Amazon is doing retaliatory firings (which is illegal btw) over those who want to unionize how Jeff gets away with it is beyond me it's clear as day he's targeting Pro unionization employees if anything Jeff should be in prison along with trump imo


----------



## RandomUser (Apr 20, 2021)

Someone on here mentioned something about UBI. I'm curious how will this be funded? Will it cause so much inflation that it would cancel each other out?


----------



## notimp (Apr 20, 2021)

RandomUser said:


> Someone on here mentioned something about UBI. I'm curious how will this be funded? Will it cause so much inflation that it would cancel each other out?


UBI is a concept, that both people on the left, who cant think of a political position aside from 'hashtags', as well as corporate planners in globalized multinationals can subscribe to.

It means both "less degrading interactions when being jobless" and "smaller state, more influence for initiatives from the private sector".

For all the press its getting, it is BS that you can hear both sides peddling hard - not to have to talk about actual societal issues and how to solve them.

Lets design a different system - whos answer is 'the market will do it', once everyone is less stressed!

In essence, you finance it via dividends on automation, and by cutting out the social state - so every country in the world becomes more like America, because America is the gutterpunk of crisis management -- while America would have to change nothin (I guess), and start taxing corporations for the first time in several decades.. 

Some say, that some form of it will be needed, when productivity decouples from human work, moreso than it already did (part of GDP that gets created in finance rather than 'the real world economy' meets more automation).

And yes inflation would be an issue - but as you should have gleened by now - the central banks have tools to not trigger 'hyperinflations' in fact, a few years back, that was arguably their main job.
edit: Also would depend on what percentage of your population would receive UBI - I guess. As spending capability of low income folks doesnt go up necessarily, the inflationary potential is probably limited as well.

edit: Also as it is financed via transfer payments - you could monitor, where the price increases take place, and tax those sectorx more - counteracting the inflationary potential.


----------



## notimp (Apr 20, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> That said I am still not sure what problem raising the minimum wage would solve, if it has really ever solved anything and those downsides from the earlier reply (really if I have to pay you are not going to be old,[...]


Its all about dynamics, not issue solving. Its not a fix. Its a tool.
Companies are forced to pay higher wages. During a period of "supporting" state investment in infrastructure. If money ended up in the industrial/corporate sector (in the past) - now is the time to invest to get market share (growth expectancy is created through sturctural investment). Minimum wages are a way to force that investment to also go into the 'human' part of your corporate process (Wages and education projects).

And as a positive side effect, you have more spending money in the broader public for a while (thats not enduring), which also pushes 'seed investing' (grass roots entrepreneurship, bleh).

If stuff goes wrong, more people are fired to get efficiency up - but all the incentives should be in place that that doesnt happen.

Apart from coming out of the Covid crisis, that doesnt help in certain sectors.


----------

