• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal minimum wage rate.

gdgyva said:
give me a number
what does that equate to right now
Click to expand...
CPI Inflation Calculator

the federal minimum wage rate in February 1968 was $1.60 per hour and it is now $7.25 per hour. If the minimum wage had kept up with inflation. It would have been $11.96 in April-2019.
(7.25 – 11.96) / (11.96) = - 4.71/11.96 = - 0.3938
The federal minimum wage has declined by more than 39% since its peak of February-1968.

The $1.60/hour minimum wasn't a great boon to lower-wage workers. Employees were not the undeserving poor bleeding corporations dry. We all do better when we all do better. If our minimum wage rate's purchasing power had been greater, our median wage's, our corporate incomes would have all been much greater.

A quarter of $11.96 is less than $3. An increase of 25% within more than a half-century is not an unreasonable expectation. But rather than increasing the minimum's purchasing power by 25%, the U.S. Congress has permitted it to decline more than 39%.
A $15 minimum wage rate's is not unreasonable. And increasing it gradually by 12.5% is not unreasonable. The minimum's never been enacted suddenly. I suppose There'd be a delay of of no less than a half year or a year before the first increase of 73 cents per at very least would be enacted.

I don't presume to predict how many years would pass until the Consumer price index would increase to achieve that 125% of February-1968 CPI.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
mike2810 said:
As the minimum wage goes up, does the salary of the ones making more than minimum wage go up as well? If not, one could say you are devaluing your higher paid workers.

example: entry level worker is making $10/hr. Shift manager is making $15/hr.
entry level worker wages are raised to $15/hr. What should the shift manager be making?
Click to expand...

What should the CEO be making? $150/hour? $1500/hour? More? The distribution of wages and salaries is becoming more and more skewed to upper management and ownership. That, too, hurts demand. There is no good reason why they should be making 100x or 1000x what lower level employees are earning.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
It used to be that people were paid enough, even in low-skill jobs, to buy homes, cars, and raise a family. LOTS of the labor force was in a pretty good place, not just middle management on up. It can still be done, but it's uncommon. And that is a problem. It's a problem for the whole economy, because demand suffers for it.
Click to expand...

well...see we have a number of problems

first off

safety....it is required in everything we sell here in the US now...and because of those safety standards, our cars cost 30-40% than other countries

we no longer build 1000-1200sq ft houses....why? because again of regulations and bureaucracy...not enough profit in it for the builders

so everything we buy big ticket items is more expensive...because the government wants it that way

so maybe it isnt the wages....maybe it is what the standards are now....

but....if your goal is to own a home and your skill is to roll items through a POS cashier machine, and then take cash or credit card....you are going to be disappointed
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
What should the CEO be making? $150/hour? $1500/hour? More? The distribution of wages and salaries is becoming more and more skewed to upper management and ownership. That, too, hurts demand. There is no good reason why they should be making 100x or 1000x what lower level employees are earning.
Click to expand...

why did you deflect, and not answer the question

if you are giving everyone raises...up to what point do the raises go?

new min go to $ 15

so the fry cook who was at $ 8 gets a jum of $ 7 an hour

what happens to the cashier who was at $ 10...does she stay at $ 15...she has more skills than the fry cook

what about the shift supervisor who was at $ 13...how much does he make now....

And on, and on, and on it goes.....where does it stop?

Big changes in min wage help no one but the tax man....who collects more

and they hurt everyone on fixed incomes who never see their COLA raises till well after the inflation has kicked their ass

we need a small raise in min wage....small to approx $ 9 bucks....nothing more
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
What should the CEO be making? $150/hour? $1500/hour? More? The distribution of wages and salaries is becoming more and more skewed to upper management and ownership. That, too, hurts demand. There is no good reason why they should be making 100x or 1000x what lower level employees are earning.
Click to expand...

Your response is basically moving the goal post.

That really does not answer my question regarding the workers. So what happens to the shift supervisor? Do they get a comparable rate increase or just the entry level workers?
I do believe some CEO's are overpaid. If the workers get a raise, the CEO should not automatically get a similar raise in most cases.

My question was to address the common workers. Not the Store owner / Manager positions.
 
mike2810 said:
Your response is basically moving the goal post.

That really does not answer my question regarding the workers. So what happens to the shift supervisor? Do they get a comparable rate increase or just the entry level workers?
I do believe some CEO's are overpaid. If the workers get a raise, the CEO should not automatically get a similar raise in most cases.

My question was to address the common workers. Not the Store owner / Manager positions.
Click to expand...

Well, you need to consider everybody. If your CEO is making a reasonable salary, then there is an argument to be made that you can't afford to pay your workers more. But if your CEO is making millions, then wages could just be shifted to the lower end without affecting profits one bit. So your question missed the point. Of course everybody's wages should get a bump. But it's also possible that some (large) salaries should come down, as well. If a company is highly profitable, it's making those high profits on the backs of labor.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Your point about regional variations in the cost of living is valid, yet those regions have boundaries which may present a problem. Employers near those regional boundaries must pay the higher wage or face the probability of a labor shortage due to those seeking employment nearby where they are guaranteed a higher starting wage.
Click to expand...

It is just the reality that our economy has all these participants with varying impacts depending on where they are and how they can participate. Even CPI calculations are based on weighted averages and assumptions, that change from time to time for inclusion in the basket of goods and services assumed to be standards.

Boundaries between areas in terms of “the cost of living” will always be as painful to deal with as taxation rates area to area (as an example.)

From economics we know people tend to react to these varying conditions, makes it cloudy at best on the impact of a federal minimum wage applied for states to run with (i.e. those wanting to go higher for whatever reason as some do today.)

But there is another matter to deal with here, the majority of those at the lowest income quintile are bucketed into job conditions that suggest there is not much room to demand more in labor rates without those business models making a change. There may be some shift business model to business model (i.e. large chain retail to large franchise model fast food) but there is some impact, I cannot find a single study that suggests an economic distortion causes no impact to any other factor.

It is why I am often critical of those who say federal minimum wage should be $12, or $15, or any number. I ask why from a position of economics and even a CPI alone based answer ends up with several problems.
 
gdgyva said:
why did you deflect, and not answer the question

if you are giving everyone raises...up to what point do the raises go?

new min go to $ 15

so the fry cook who was at $ 8 gets a jum of $ 7 an hour

what happens to the cashier who was at $ 10...does she stay at $ 15...she has more skills than the fry cook

what about the shift supervisor who was at $ 13...how much does he make now....

And on, and on, and on it goes.....where does it stop?

Big changes in min wage help no one but the tax man....who collects more

and they hurt everyone on fixed incomes who never see their COLA raises till well after the inflation has kicked their ass

we need a small raise in min wage....small to approx $ 9 bucks....nothing more
Click to expand...

The minimum wage in Australia is almost $19/hour. But a Big Mac only costs $5.85. That's a tradeoff any American worker would love to make.

Australia also has universal healthcare, so they don't have to spend a big chunk of their $19/hour on insurance and out-of-pocket expenses. Another tradeoff American labor should jump at.

As for fixed incomes, SS should be raised as well, by quite a bit.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
The minimum wage in Australia is almost $19/hour. But a Big Mac only costs $5.85. That's a tradeoff any American worker would love to make.

Australia also has universal healthcare, so they don't have to spend a big chunk of their $19/hour on insurance and out-of-pocket expenses. Another tradeoff American labor should jump at.

As for fixed incomes, SS should be raised as well, by quite a bit.
Click to expand...

we dont live in australia

i bet they dont pay the same rates for liability insurance, or workmans comp

i bet their utilities rates are different...

i can list a lot of different expenses we pay here they may not pay there....

why do people always use OTHER countries models as examples....

we arent and never will be scandinavian countries, european countries, or australia

we have our own set of issues here....and government is the biggest hurdle business faces
 
OrphanSlug said:
It is why I am often critical of those who say federal minimum wage should be $12, or $15, or any number. I ask why from a position of economics and even a CPI alone based answer ends up with several problems.
Click to expand...

The more money the lower end makes, the more money they spend. Businesses get all of that money eventually anyway. I used the example of McDonald's in Australia, a business that would see its labor costs go way up, but they aren't hurting. More people can afford to eat there than before.
 
gdgyva said:
we dont live in australia

i bet they dont pay the same rates for liability insurance, or workmans comp

i bet their utilities rates are different...

i can list a lot of different expenses we pay here they may not pay there....

why do people always use OTHER countries models as examples....

we arent and never will be scandinavian countries, european countries, or australia

we have our own set of issues here....and government is the biggest hurdle business faces
Click to expand...

Go ahead and compare! Australians aren't exactly clamoring to come to the U.S., nor are Europeans or Japanese, regardless of regulations or taxes. They all have healthcare. They buy homes and cars. They go to college. They go on vacations. There is nothing great about our system here. It actually stinks in comparison.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
The more money the lower end makes, the more money they spend. Businesses get all of that money eventually anyway. I used the example of McDonald's in Australia, a business that would see its labor costs go way up, but they aren't hurting. More people can afford to eat there than before.
Click to expand...

In practical terms we know just about everything the lowest income quintile earns ends up spent, and it does stand to reason that if there was more for them to spend on the common basket of goods and services odds are they will. Generally speaking we are not talking about net savers.

My issue is still the same. I have never seen a true economic study that says sudden labor rate increases, especially if artificial (i.e. by legislation and not labor supply and demand) have zero impact to all other economic factors.

In a closed economic model there is perhaps more room to maneuver here, but I cannot think of too many economic models where that is plausible and I am fairly convinced the US economic model is not even close.

All that said I get that there are some success stories out there that further cloud the debate (as I’ve admitted in perhaps not so many words.)
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Go ahead and compare! Australians aren't exactly clamoring to come to the U.S., nor are Europeans or Japanese, regardless of regulations or taxes. They all have healthcare. They buy homes and cars. They go to college. They go on vacations. There is nothing great about our system here. It actually stinks in comparison.
Click to expand...

i dont want to compare....

you do....

i like the USA

i dont have an issue with the system the way it is....you do

i have done rather well here...havent you?
 
gdgyva said:
i dont want to compare....

you do....

i like the USA

i dont have an issue with the system the way it is....you do

i have done rather well here...havent you?
Click to expand...

I have done well too, money-wise. That's not the point. I'd prefer it if the difference between my suburb and those closer to the city wasn't so stark. I don't live in a bubble.

But even for those of us who do well, there is little security. My family was recently faced with a $50K bill for a lifeflight, which we had no say in. And there was a real question as to whether or not our insurance company was going to cover that bill. That would have sunk us, or at least the ship would be listing badly.

I read somewhere recently that something like 43% of Americans are financially wiped out by medical bills at the end. I wish I could find that article... That's a large chunk of our wealth that ends up going to the healthcare industry in the end.

Even With Insurance, Americans Can't Afford Their Medical Bills - The Atlantic
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
The government is constitutionally authorized to work for the welfare of the people. It is not designed to benefit businesses, then delegate the people's welfare to the business sector. Which, unfortunately, is exactly what Republicans have been pushing for for decades.

Healthcare - left largely up to market forces. Which is why our healthcare stinks, and millions are left without coverage.

Pensions - left largely up to market forces. Which is why so many retirees end up in poverty.

Environment - protections have been eroded to benefit businesses, which is why pollution is a problem and global warming is still a huge threat.

You are still buying into the fairy tale that, if we just leave them alone even more, Big Business will save the day.
Click to expand...

We are definitely in disagreement as to what government is supposed to do. Government is constitutionally supposed to PROMOTE the general welfare, not PROVIDE welfare to anybody. The Number one difference between modern day American conservatives/libertarians (small "L") is that they understand that and progressives/leftists don't.
 
AlbqOwl said:
... Only a little over 2% of American employees are paid the federal minimum wage, most of those are working temporary or part time jobs on purpose and/or will be given raises within a relatively short period of time.
Click to expand...
AlbqOwl, the federal minimum wage rate's applicable to USA's least desirable or least qualified USA employees.
There are among aggregate job applicants and employees, some more or less desirable others.

Due to wage differentials,the minimum rate greater bolsters lower and lesser bolsters higher wage rates. But in aggregate it does to some extent bolster all USA wage scales.

For most classifications of jobs or tasks in the USA, there are more applicants and employees earning comparatively lesser rather than greater wage rates. That's why the inadequacy of the minimum rate's reflected by a less adequate median rate. The purchasing power of USA's median wage rate is a good gauge of our living standards. If the purchasing power of the U.S. minimum wage rate's poorer, than USA must have a poorer living standard.

That's exactly what has been happening to U.S. wages for many decades.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Well, you need to consider everybody. If your CEO is making a reasonable salary, then there is an argument to be made that you can't afford to pay your workers more. But if your CEO is making millions, then wages could just be shifted to the lower end without affecting profits one bit. So your question missed the point. Of course everybody's wages should get a bump. But it's also possible that some (large) salaries should come down, as well. If a company is highly profitable, it's making those high profits on the backs of labor.
Click to expand...

You also miss the point the impact of $15/hr could have on small businesses. The ones where the owners do not make millions.

Not knowing what you do, would you be willing to take a pay cut so the lower paid workers could get more?
What I see in your post is income envy. So lets take Bill Gates, cut his worth so workers can be paid more. Oh wait, what would that do the charity giving the Gates do?
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
I have done well too, money-wise. That's not the point. I'd prefer it if the difference between my suburb and those closer to the city wasn't so stark. I don't live in a bubble.

But even for those of us who do well, there is little security. My family was recently faced with a $50K bill for a lifeflight, which we had no say in. And there was a real question as to whether or not our insurance company was going to cover that bill. That would have sunk us, or at least the ship would be listing badly.

I read somewhere recently that something like 43% of Americans are financially wiped out by medical bills at the end. I wish I could find that article... That's a large chunk of our wealth that ends up going to the healthcare industry in the end.

Even With Insurance, Americans Can't Afford Their Medical Bills - The Atlantic
Click to expand...

that is a problem

but it has nothing to do with wages....

it is a 3 prong problem

first...most of the advanced R&D happens here in the USA....why? because companies know they can actually profit off of stuff here....look at the biggest developments in medicine and medical tech over the last 75 years....and where was it developed? the vast majority was HERE....and then it sent overseas at much reduced rates....

who is going to pay for the R&D if corporate profits are squeezed to where they no longer see the viability of research?

two...litigation....we are sue happy here in the USA....more so than any other country in the world. so our liability rates are astounding, and malpractice insurance rates in some areas keep some doctors from even opening practices....how do we change that? i dont want to take away the right of someone to sue if they have been harmed, but i want the system to work

three....middlemen and insurance companies....we have so many layers of billing and administration wrapped into our systems....for one treatment (say a tonsillectomy) a fairly routine surgery done to kids across the USA....the hospital will bill 5-6 different amounts based on who your insurance is, and what your ability to pay is.....not what the procedure should ACTUALLY cost....it is a menagerie of crap that has to be fixed

but fixing those three items means putting nearly 3 million americans out of work....which causes other problems
 
AlbqOwl said:
We are definitely in disagreement as to what government is supposed to do. Government is constitutionally supposed to PROMOTE the general welfare, not PROVIDE welfare to anybody. The Number one difference between modern day American conservatives/libertarians (small "L") is that they understand that and progressives/leftists don't.
Click to expand...

Like I said before, the real difference is where we put our faith. You put yours in Big Business. I put mine in a democratically elected government.

Government used to work better than it does now, before the influence of big donors took over. So we have already gotten a taste of what the country is like when government defers to business interests. I don't like that taste, and I really doubt that cutting even more regulations is going to make it taste any better.
 
gdgyva said:
that is a problem

but it has nothing to do with wages....

it is a 3 prong problem

first...most of the advanced R&D happens here in the USA....why? because companies know they can actually profit off of stuff here....look at the biggest developments in medicine and medical tech over the last 75 years....and where was it developed? the vast majority was HERE....and then it sent overseas at much reduced rates....

who is going to pay for the R&D if corporate profits are squeezed to where they no longer see the viability of research?
Click to expand...

You have some funny ideas of where research funding comes from. In reality, it comes from government-funded research. Basic research is done in university labs using government funding. Companies, especially drug companies, only swoop in when something that looks promising is far enough along. And they don't give the government a cut of those profits, either.

NASA research has paid off handsomely for businesses. Defense companies use government funding.

Other countries do research, too. It is a particularly American notion that we are the epicenter of all things novel, one that we use to fool ourselves into thinking that the American Way is the best way. That's naive.

gdgyva said:
two...litigation....we are sue happy here in the USA....more so than any other country in the world. so our liability rates are astounding, and malpractice insurance rates in some areas keep some doctors from even opening practices....how do we change that? i dont want to take away the right of someone to sue if they have been harmed, but i want the system to work
Click to expand...

Another example of lobbies getting their way, at the expense of the little guy, who generally can't afford to pay for legal representation.

gdgyva said:
three....middlemen and insurance companies....we have so many layers of billing and administration wrapped into our systems....for one treatment (say a tonsillectomy) a fairly routine surgery done to kids across the USA....the hospital will bill 5-6 different amounts based on who your insurance is, and what your ability to pay is.....not what the procedure should ACTUALLY cost....it is a menagerie of crap that has to be fixed
Click to expand...

Universal healthcare would go a long way here. All reasonable estimates say that total healthcare costs would go down with universal healthcare, with better results.

gdgyva said:
but fixing those three items means putting nearly 3 million americans out of work....which causes other problems
Click to expand...

Really? And where did you get that estimate? Conservative think tank, maybe?
 
mike2810 said:
You also miss the point the impact of $15/hr could have on small businesses. The ones where the owners do not make millions.

Not knowing what you do, would you be willing to take a pay cut so the lower paid workers could get more?
Click to expand...

I don't earn wages, I'm an attorney. But I would be willing to pay higher taxes in return for universal healthcare, and the GND in general.

As for small businesses, they might have an argument. But they would probably benefit the most from increased commerce at the lower end. Bigger companies won't be affected much. But any of this is solvable; the increases might be more gradual, for example. Taxes could be adjusted to help the small businessmen out. That's not a good enough reason to keep labor in poverty, though. Not everybody is going to win, but most will be better off.

mike2810 said:
What I see in your post is income envy. So lets take Bill Gates, cut his worth so workers can be paid more. Oh wait, what would that do the charity giving the Gates do?
Click to expand...

Yeah, you guys always see "income envy" whenever you start to lose the debate. It's a weak argument.

Personally, I'm doing fine. But I would like to die with a few dollars left, and that's not easy to do in our system. Most likely, the healthcare industry and the nursing home industry is going to end up with all of my chips.
 
I'm Supposn said:
AlbqOwl, the federal minimum wage rate's applicable to USA's least desirable or least qualified USA employees.
There are among aggregate job applicants and employees, some more or less desirable others.

Due to wage differentials,the minimum rate greater bolsters lower and lesser bolsters higher wage rates. But in aggregate it does to some extent bolster all USA wage scales.

For most classifications of jobs or tasks in the USA, there are more applicants and employees earning comparatively lesser rather than greater wage rates. That's why the inadequacy of the minimum rate's reflected by a less adequate median rate. The purchasing power of USA's median wage rate is a good gauge of our living standards. If the purchasing power of the U.S. minimum wage rate's poorer, than USA must have a poorer living standard.

That's exactly what has been happening to U.S. wages for many decades.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

When I was working for minimum wage, I was absolutely 100% not one of the least desirable or least qualified employees. But I was willing to take the minimum wage job to get my foot in the door so that I would have opportunity to show an employer what I could do and prove how valuable I could be. Only once in my life did I work at or near minimum wage for more than a short while because I was moved into a more lucrative position when one became available. The one where I stayed at minimum wage was voluntary to help out a friend whose business was struggling. And I did help him out. When a career position came open and I moved on, I did so with his blessings.

There aren't that many minimum wage jobs out there, but the ones that are there are sometimes a real blessings for the person who wants to work and just needs a chance to establish and prove himself or herself. Very few people who are worth more money than minimum wage stay in those jobs or at that wage level for long.

Again only something over 2% of American workers are working for minimum wage and most of those won't stay at that rate longer than a few weeks at most.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
I don't earn wages, I'm an attorney. But I would be willing to pay higher taxes in return for universal healthcare, and the GND in general.

As for small businesses, they might have an argument. But they would probably benefit the most from increased commerce at the lower end. Bigger companies won't be affected much. But any of this is solvable; the increases might be more gradual, for example. Taxes could be adjusted to help the small businessmen out. That's not a good enough reason to keep labor in poverty, though. Not everybody is going to win, but most will be better off.



Yeah, you guys always see "income envy" whenever you start to lose the debate. It's a weak argument.

Personally, I'm doing fine. But I would like to die with a few dollars left, and that's not easy to do in our system. Most likely, the healthcare industry and the nursing home industry is going to end up with all of my chips.
Click to expand...

Hardly loosing.

So am I doing fine. Yes some CEO's salary is outrages. I just accept it for what it is. Much like I accept that a large portion of our population does not pay any federal income tax. I also understand the "rich" pay a large portion into the US coffers under current tax policies.

Personal view. A minimum wage job was never meant to be a job to support a family. It is crazy in my view to pay $15/hr for a non skilled worker. Especially when many of them are kids living at home with their parents for free.
 
gdgyva said:
give me a number
what does that equate to right now
Click to expand...
I'm Supposn said:
CPI Inflation Calculator

the federal minimum wage rate in February 1968 was $1.60 per hour and it is now $7.25 per hour. If the minimum wage had kept up with inflation. It would have been $11.96 in April-2019.
(7.25 – 11.96) / (11.96) = - 4.71/11.96 = - 0.3938
The federal minimum wage has declined by more than 39% since its peak of February-1968.

The $1.60/hour minimum wasn't a great boon to lower-wage workers. Employees were not the undeserving poor bleeding corporations dry. We all do better when we all do better. If our minimum wage rate's purchasing power had been greater, our median wage's, our corporate incomes would have all been much greater.

A quarter of $11.96 is less than $3. An increase of 25% within more than a half-century is not an unreasonable expectation. But rather than increasing the minimum's purchasing power by 25%, the U.S. Congress has permitted it to decline more than 39%.
A $15 minimum wage rate's is not unreasonable. And increasing it gradually by 12.5% is not unreasonable. The minimum's never been enacted suddenly. I suppose There'd be a delay of of no less than a half year or a year before the first increase of 73 cents per at very least would be enacted.

I don't presume to predict how many years would pass until the Consumer price index would increase to achieve that 125% of February-1968 CPI.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...
Correction: before the first annual increase of no more than 91 cents would be enacted. It cannot be more that 91 cents because any loss of purchasing power is recovered and embedded within the 12.5% increase.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
AlbqOwl said:
... Again only something over 2% of American workers are working for minimum wage and most of those won't stay at that rate longer than a few weeks at most.
Click to expand...
AlbqOwl, I iterate, due to wage differentials, the minimum rate greater bolsters lower and lesser bolsters higher wage rates. But in aggregate it does to some extent bolster all USA wage scales.

You write an intelligent post but then you include, the 2% sentence. If O% of employees earned exactly the $7.25 federal minimum rate, that still would not be germane to this discussion.
The federal minimum wage rate critically affects the wage rates of the lowest paid fifth of USA's employees.
The federal minimum wage rate at least very substantially affects the wage rates of the lowest paid 40% of USA's employees.
The federal minimum wage rate effects are inverse to the job's wage rate. Lower wage rates' are much more, and higher wage rates' are much less affected by the minimum rate, but unless there's a scarcity of qualified applicants for a job, all wage scales are TO SOME EXTENT effected.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom