Hillary: Raise federal minimum wage to $12 an hour.

Hillary: Raise federal minimum wage to $12 an hour.

I think this is absolutely brilliant. It's about time. It's only fair.

And I guarantee it will balance the budget and give America the greatest economy of all time.

WAIT FOR IT.
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
SOME OF YOU ALREADY KNOW WHERE THIS IS GOING.
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
By all means, raise the FEDERAL minimum wage to $12 an hour, on ALL NON MILITARY FEDERAL WORKERS.
Start with Congress, the White House, the Cabinet and the Supreme Court.

The budget would be balanced in two years.

reason10 said:

Hillary: Raise federal minimum wage to $12 an hour.

I think this is absolutely brilliant. It's about time. It's only fair.

And I guarantee it will balance the budget and give America the greatest economy of all time.

WAIT FOR IT.
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
SOME OF YOU ALREADY KNOW WHERE THIS IS GOING.
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
By all means, raise the FEDERAL minimum wage to $12 an hour, on ALL NON MILITARY FEDERAL WORKERS.
Start with Congress, the White House, the Cabinet and the Supreme Court.

The budget would be balanced in two years.

Click to expand...

Buying votes is as old as it goes and dates back to pre-democratic times. It is also a sure prescription to tears later on.

Salary to per hour? Does she really believe federal workers are paid by the hour?

EnigmaO01 said:

Salary to per hour? Does she really believe federal workers are paid by the hour?

Click to expand...

Many levels of federal workers are, like janitors, mail room, etc. I'm sure the list is much longer, but those are the initial obvious ones.

reason10 said:

Hillary: Raise federal minimum wage to $12 an hour.

I think this is absolutely brilliant. It's about time. It's only fair.

And I guarantee it will balance the budget and give America the greatest economy of all time.

WAIT FOR IT.
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
SOME OF YOU ALREADY KNOW WHERE THIS IS GOING.
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
By all means, raise the FEDERAL minimum wage to $12 an hour, on ALL NON MILITARY FEDERAL WORKERS.
Start with Congress, the White House, the Cabinet and the Supreme Court.

The budget would be balanced in two years.

Click to expand...

Which shows me she hasn't learned the lesson Obama probably still hasn't learned, or she would end up being content with a $10 minimum wage, because she's already split the desired minimum wage increase of most of the country before negotiations even begin, which will then have to be at least cut in half again before getting any agreement from her Wallstreet overlords.

I know she's made a point of saying that just before the crash she went to Wallstreet and "warned" them, but apparently they ignored her, knowing that she was well bought and paid for and the "talking to" was just theater. I look forward to someone in the press or opponent to catch on to how she actually dismisses her own credibility as one to take on Wallstreet with that story.

Summerwind said:

Which shows me she hasn't learned the lesson Obama probably still hasn't learned, or she would end up being content with a $10 minimum wage, because she's already split the desired minimum wage increase of most of the country before negotiations even begin, which will then have to be at least cut in half again before getting any agreement from her Wallstreet overlords.

I know she's made a point of saying that just before the crash she went to Wallstreet and "warned" them, but apparently they ignored her, knowing that she was well bought and paid for and the "talking to" was just theater. I look forward to someone in the press or opponent to catch on to how she actually dismisses her own credibility as one to take on Wallstreet with that story.

Click to expand...

It's a sad thing to say but Wall Street owns it all. No matter who the President will be that person can't just change the minimum wage without Congressional involvement. :shrug:

This is typical HRC logic. Some want an increase to $10.10, others want an increase to $15 - the obvious correct stance is to "compromise" by picking a number somewhere in between. That way you can be more generous than Obama yet not be as "extreme" as those wanting the highest proposed amount - making her both more liberal than Obama yet also a "centrist".

I think a better idea is to index the federal MW to the CPI but that takes the issue off the table - ruining its political appeal.

EnigmaO01 said:

Salary to per hour? Does she really believe federal workers are paid by the hour?

Click to expand...

I was a federal worker and was paid by the hour. Most Title 5 and all Title 32 jobs pay hourly.

This is an example I pulled up for a Title 32 job.

Job Series 8852 - Aircraft Mechanic
This standard is used to grade all nonsupervisory jobs involved in the maintenance, troubleshooting, repair, overhaul, and modification of fixed and rotary wing aircraft systems, airframes, components and assemblies, where the work requires substantive knowledge of the airframe and aircraft mechanical, pneudraulic, and/or electrical systems and their interrelationships. Some work situations within this series may require varying levels of electronics knowledge.

Aircraft Inspector

Army National Guard Units (Title 32) in Groton, Connecticut

Salary (WG Grade 12/12) from $30.87 - $36.00 Per Hour

Click to expand...

Summerwind said:

Many levels of federal workers are, like janitors, mail room, etc. I'm sure the list is much longer, but those are the initial obvious ones.

Click to expand...

I stand corrected.

ttwtt78640 said:

This is typical HRC logic. Some want an increase to $10.10, others want an increase to $15 - the obvious correct stance is to "compromise" by picking a number somewhere in between. That way you can be more generous than Obama yet not be as "extreme" as those wanting the highest proposed amount - making her both more liberal than Obama yet also a "centrist".

I think a better idea is to index the federal MW to the CPI but that takes the issue off the table - ruining its political appeal.

Click to expand...

Not really credited to Clinton herself.

I would say she's standing on firm ground to argue that position. There's been plenty of position papers arguing for 12. Most importantly, there was also a prominent bill setting out to get it raised to 12.

Clinton is standing on comfortable ground for a liberal.

Fiddytree said:

Not really credited to Clinton herself.

I would say she's standing on firm ground to argue that position. There's been plenty of position papers arguing for 12. Most importantly, there was also a prominent bill setting out to get it raised to 12.

Clinton is standing on comfortable ground for a liberal.

Click to expand...

That bill, IIRC, was essentailly an attempt to index the federal MW to inflation but using the historic high MW of 1968 as the basis and whatever the national median wage happens to be (a dangerous concept if median wage increases continue to lag below the CPI increase). It called for a "phased in" increase to $12/hour by 2020. That is actually still lower than many state/local MW rates now in effect.

While economists acknowledge that a steep increase could stifle job-creation, liberal analysts argued that when adjusted for inflation, a $12 floor in 2020 would merely bring the minimum wage in line with where it was in 1968, when it hit its peak relative to the broader economy. Unlike earlier proposals, the Murray-Scott bill would also raise the minimum wage for tipped workers (waiters and waitresses, for example), and it would be indexed to the median wage nationally, as opposed to inflation measured by consumer prices.

Click to expand...

Democrats Unveil $12 Minimum Wage Bill - The Atlantic

The Democrats show they can't be trusted on this issue. In the current political environment the minimum wage can't be increased at all unless some Republicans are on board with it. First the Dems wanted $10.10 per hour, then they are on record for $15 per hour, now Hillary has decided to split the difference at $12 per hour, although I'm pretty sure I heard her talk about $15. This just goes to show that the Republicans are afraid of backing $10.10 because the next thing you know they will be after $12 and then $15. By the way, I think it is stupid to index the MW to inflation because it creates a never ending spiral of inflation in itself. The higher the MW is the more it helps stoke inflation and it never ends, sort of like throwing gasoline on a fire hoping to put the fire out but the more the fire burns the more gasoline you want to keep throwing on it.

ttwtt78640 said:

That bill, IIRC, was essentailly an attempt to index the federal MW to inflation but using the historic high MW of 1968 as the basis and whatever the national median wage happens to be (a dangerous concept if median wage increases continue to lag below the CPI increase). It called for a "phased in" increase to $12/hour by 2020. That is actually still lower than many state/local MW rates now in effect.

While economists acknowledge that a steep increase could stifle job-creation, liberal analysts argued that when adjusted for inflation, a $12 floor in 2020 would merely bring the minimum wage in line with where it was in 1968, when it hit its peak relative to the broader economy. Unlike earlier proposals, the Murray-Scott bill would also raise the minimum wage for tipped workers (waiters and waitresses, for example), and it would be indexed to the median wage nationally, as opposed to inflation measured by consumer prices.

Click to expand...

Democrats Unveil $12 Minimum Wage Bill - The Atlantic

Click to expand...

Good Night, this is stupid.

ttwtt78640 said:

This is typical HRC logic. Some want an increase to $10.10, others want an increase to $15 - the obvious correct stance is to "compromise" by picking a number somewhere in between. That way you can be more generous than Obama yet not be as "extreme" as those wanting the highest proposed amount - making her both more liberal than Obama yet also a "centrist".

I think a better idea is to index the federal MW to the CPI but that takes the issue off the table - ruining its political appeal.

Click to expand...

Well, $12/hr is only a tad higher than the MW wage would be if it was at the late-60's early-70's levels in real dollar terms... (aka, if it had been indexed back then)

cpwill said:

Good Night, this is stupid.

Click to expand...

Forgive them, for they know not what they do.

I must confess that I have not read the actual bill, perhaps it explains the adjustment formula better than the source that I cited. The concept seems stupid to adjust the bottom wage based on the median wage rather than on the cost of living. One would assume that projecting what the result of that formula would (should?) be in 2020 is, in and of itself, violating that concept entirely.

Mr Person said:

Well, $12/hr is only a tad higher than the MW wage would be if it was at the late-60's early-70's levels in real dollar terms... (aka, if it had been indexed back then)

Click to expand...

and they always accuse conservatives of wanting to go back to the past.

Why in the world is that a reason to make poor people structurally unemployable?

Mr Person said:

Well, $12/hr is only a tad higher than the MW wage would be if it was at the late-60's early-70's levels in real dollar terms... (aka, if it had been indexed back then)

Click to expand...

So what? My point is - why should we have to play politics with the federal MW at all? It either has a basis on the CPI or it does not. If it does than CPI indexing should be included in the federal MW law (just like it is for SS and CSRS pensions), if not then why mention it at all?

cpwill said:

and they always accuse conservatives of wanting to go back to the past.

Why in the world is that a reason to make poor people structurally unemployable?

Click to expand...

There was no structural unemployment even with the federal MW at its historic high in 1968. My question is - why should the federal MW now be any higher than it was in the past? Nobody seems to have an answer for that other than that we now have more "safety net" programs that we did then.

The "safety net" programs decrease natural pressure (market forces?) from raising wages and worker skills. If one requires $X, in order to live comfortably, then they couldn't care less what portion of $X comes from their paycheck and what is added by the "safety net". So long as one increases than the other need not - that seems to be the prevailing argument on the left for raising the federal MW. The downside is that making any McJob (plus the "safety net") pay enough to keep folks happy reduces pressure to get beyond that McJob level of skill/production.

Once that McJob is automated then those folks are left 100% dependent on the "safety net" unless they can equal, if not surpass, those having the level of skill required to be employable. That, BTW, is what I would call structural unemployment.

ttwtt78640 said:

There was no structural unemployment even with the federal MW at its historic high in 1968. My question is - why should the federal MW now be any higher than it was in the past? Nobody seems to have an answer for that other than that we now have more "safety net" programs that we did then.

The "safety net" programs decrease natural pressure (market forces?) from raising wages and worker skills. If one requires $X, in order to live comfortably, then they couldn't care less what portion of $X comes from their paycheck and what is added by the "safety net". So long as one increases than the other need not - that seems to be the prevailing argument on the left for raising the federal MW. The downside is that making any McJob (plus the "safety net") pay enough to keep folks happy reduces pressure to get beyond that McJob level of skill/production.

Once that McJob is automated then those folks are left 100% dependent on the "safety net" unless they can equal, if not surpass, those having the level of skill required to be employable. That, BTW, is what I would call structural unemployment.

Click to expand...

You are mistaking that which we see for that which can be - there are plenty of low-skill jobs that are and can be made. The question is whether or not they can be profitably offered. When they cannot be, and when someone's skill set and experience is not sufficient to allow them to break in above the mandated price-floor, then they are structurally unemployable.

cpwill said:

You are mistaking that which we see for that which can be - there are plenty of low-skill jobs that are and can be made. The question is whether or not they can be profitably offered. When they cannot be, and when someone's skill set and experience is not sufficient to allow them to break in above the mandated price-floor, then they are structurally unemployable.

Click to expand...

On that point I agree completely. I am simply saying that the labor price floor is dropping compared to the cost of living and that keeping it constant (relative to the CPI) will not cause anything major to happen. Why is it right to increase SS benefits (and other federal pensions) yet not right to increase the federal MW based on the CPI?

We should lower it to $0.

ttwtt78640 said:

On that point I agree completely. I am simply saying that the labor price floor is dropping compared to the cost of living and that keeping it constant (relative to the CPI) will not cause anything major to happen. Why is it right to increase SS benefits (and other federal pensions) yet not right to increase the federal MW based on the CPI?

Click to expand...

Because Votes.

It should be pointed out the minimum wage hikes would affect a very minuscule portion of the population - roughly 5% of the population. Of that, half are under 24. (New workers starting out in the workforce, teenagers). It was also pointed out that the minimum wage hike of 2007 hit teenagers and those working industries like the fast food industry the hardest. CNN recently did an article where they adjusted the historic minimum wage to inflation. For most of the history of the minimum wage it has been a level near our current minimum wage ($7.25). Since 1984, it has been close to the $7.25 we have currently, in real dollars. In real dollars, our minimum wage is higher than the minimum wage during World War II, higher than 1954. Only the periods between 1955 and 1985 are higher.

I don’t think raising the minimum wage is going to have a meaningful economic impact. For obvious reasons, the economic booms of the post-World War II era, the Eisenhower era, the Reagan era boom, the Clinton era economic boom all lifted incomes (it has been argued that if you count it by household size, incomes continued to rise throughout to the end of the Clinton Administration). Raising it to $12 would probably be the highest, per real dollars, that it ever has been. The old Democratic argument that if we kept the minimum wage indexed to inflation, it would be $22 - it has never been done, for very good reasons (it would jack up the prices of consumer goods, considerably, for one. The guy selling you your shoes makes minimum wage. The price of your shoes is going to go up as a result, if he’s paid $22 an hour).

The current angst among Democratic primary voters probably represent the fact that wages have been stagnant since 2000. It isn’t necessarily rooted in economic wisdom to deal with stagnant wages, but it’s probably a political issue that sends the signal of support for these disaffected groups.

Raising the minimum wage actually hurts the lower middle class. Let's say that a lot of people are making $10 - $12 per hour, which is approximately $3 - $5 over the federal minimum wage now. If the minimum wage was raised up to $10 per hour, these people would get no raise at all and instead of making their $3 - $5 over the minimum wage, they actually lose ground because they don't make a dime more and yet they will have to pay higher prices for products in many places they go. The people who had been making $10 per hour before would go from making $3 per hour over minimum wage to making minimum wage. Once again, the middle class gets the shaft, the people who need it the most.

Wages should be automatically tied to the cost of living where the employer operates.