Why a federal minimum wage law?

Nap · Aug 12, 2019

Lord of Planar said:
If that will make our trade balance close to zero, then it may have merit. I didn't mean to sound like I want trade eliminated. Trade is good. We just have too large of an imbalance with other countries.

More regulation is not the answer, we need to educate the population on the importance of buying American and supporting local workers/businesses. We got people that talk big about supporting labor and the poor but rather than buying American made products they have a house full of cheap Chinese crap and drive a Prius.

I'm Supposn · Aug 12, 2019

Drawdown said:
... I am a proponent of value-added taxes or even a national sales tax to put downward pressure on consumption of discretionary tangibles and would be open to them occurring simultaneously to curb increased pollution that otherwise would occur with increased consumption of goods brought on by the MW increase. Smart metering, nationwide fiber, and all the other bells and whistles technology brings will drive up prices for consumers for services even if the prices for good is more muted.

Drawdown,The value added tax method is superior to all other methods for administrating a sales tax. Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn said:
A federal sales tax?

“Fair Tax” proponents generally propose transfer of our major federal tax revenue sources should be accomplished within a single year, if not upon a single date. I do not believe the U.S. Congress would or should ever be so imprudent. those fair tax proponents are insisting that their proposal should never be passed, and enacted. ...
... Individuals and their dependents’ incomes are (proportionally to their actual incomes), more accurately reflected by their aggregate purchasing transactions rather than by the tax forms they submit for the purposes of reporting their incomes. Costs due to tax evasions, compliance, administration, and enforcement are less for general flat rated taxes based upon gross sales rather than taxes upon net incomes.

I believe a federal sales tax rate to entirely replace USA’s tax revenues derived from taxes upon enterprises' and individuals' net incomes and payrolls would be politically unacceptable and economically less than feasible). If incremental enactment were to begin, I believe after one of the incremental steps the congress would recognize this and interrupt sales tax increases.

If I’m incorrect, sales tax would entirely replace federal taxes based upon net incomes.

Replacing any portion or all portions of our taxes upon net incomes with a sales tax would be net beneficial to our economy. ...

I'm Supposn · Aug 12, 2019

Nap said:
More regulation is not the answer, we need to educate the population on the importance of buying American and supporting local workers/businesses. We got people that talk big about supporting labor and the poor but rather than buying American made products they have a house full of cheap Chinese crap and drive a Prius.

I'm Supposn said:
Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP and drag upon their numbers of jobs. They indicate national use and consumption exceeded the nation's production.

Nap, you want to convince people they should act contrary to their own best interests because their individual best interests are contrary to that of our nation. We've often tried and have almost always failed to accomplish that.
It's difficult to convince individuals to sacrifice while they're aware that the great plurality of our majority will not do so. You're asking that they sacrifice with while knowing that their sacrifice will be of no perceivable extent of benefit to their nation.

I'm among the proponents of the improved trade policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article. It would significantly reduce, (if not eliminate) USA's great chronic trade deficits of goods which are detrimental to our numbers of jobs and the amounts of our payrolls. Its entire net costs are passed on to USA purchasers of imported goods in a manner that behaves as a subsidy of USA exported goods' prices.

Refer to: Import certificates - Wikipedia

Respectfully, Supposn

Drawdown · Aug 12, 2019

I'm Supposn said:
Drawdown & Lord of Planar, the federal minimum wage rate may be applied to the least desirable employee or applicant for the least challenging task or job, without regard to what industry, product, they're involved with.Drawdowns advocating different minimum wage rates for different industries? The janitor in a university is going to covered at a differing minimum rate than the guy that cleans the toilet in a bar or a bus terminal? I don't understand why that should be so?

Respectfully, Supposn

I have no advocated for differing mW rates, but they do exist at the federal lever (waitresses) and at some state levels (NYC's lower rate for smaller employers)

Sheepdog · Aug 12, 2019

noonereal said:
This is screwed up on so many levels.

Yet you cant name one of them.

Lord of Planar · Aug 12, 2019

I'm Supposn said:
Drawdown & Lord of Planar, the federal minimum wage rate may be applied to the least desirable employee or applicant for the least challenging task or job, without regard to what industry, product, they're involved with.Drawdowns advocating different minimum wage rates for different industries? The janitor in a university is going to covered at a differing minimum rate than the guy that cleans the toilet in a bar or a bus terminal? I don't understand why that should be so?

Respectfully, Supposn

Well, keep in mind, I don't believe a minimum wage should be necessary. However, if we are going to have minimum wage standards, then I can see applying a higher value to jobs that require skill vs. those that don't.

With the skills of my job, I get paid several times minimum wage. Should minimum wage go up, shouldn't my wages go up too?

What people don't realize is that there will be a demand created for everyone's wages to increase. They might not increase by the same amount, but the cost of living will rise if minimum wages increase, and then everyone should rightfully expect compensation as well.

bluesmoke · Aug 12, 2019

I'm Supposn said:
Bluesmoke, that question's answer would be subjective, (i.e. a matter of opinions), rather than a matter of objective facts.

No increase of the federal minimum wage rate has ever been net detrimental to our nation's economy. I'm unaware of any nation's economy having been harmed because their wage rates were excessive. I'm among those that consider a very much greater minimum rate would have been of much greater economic benefit to us in 1968; (February-1968 the minimum reached its historical peak thus far).

But we cannot achieve what's politically unfeasible. I advocate a gradually increasing the minimum by 12.5% annually until we achieve 125% of the minimum's February-1969 CPI value, Thereafter we should annually adjust to retain that value. After a some years of experience, I expect the U.S, Congress seeking the best advice, will determine our further policy in this matter.

Respectfully, Supposn

Using CPI by region, not by state, would be an improvement if that’s what you also recommend. Starting out using the existing min. wage base by state, though, is hardly near a more equivalent state-to-state, region-to-region or locale-to-locale when based on a living wage. Also, once you arrive at your goal, that may not be a living wage, depending on the state or region. That’s why I recommended the living wage model that includes more finite geography for what area a specific minimum wage will be applied.

I would say, though most any statistical model has some subjectivity, the COL model I’ve posted before, and am now posting again, is about as objective and fair (meaning because it applies COL and to more finite areas) as I’ve seen, IMO. To support states and employers getting there, I would recommend federal subsidies, that regress until gone, supporting a set annual percentage increase, like you recommended though not necessarily the same %. The % would be based on how much the federal govt. could subsidize.

Living Wage Calculator

Lord of Planar · Aug 12, 2019

Nap said:
More regulation is not the answer, we need to educate the population on the importance of buying American and supporting local workers/businesses. We got people that talk big about supporting labor and the poor but rather than buying American made products they have a house full of cheap Chinese crap and drive a Prius.

Yep, talk is cheap. Very few people actually live by how they speak. Myself, I do buy as much "Made in the USA" as I can. I make some exceptions. My convertible Camaro SS, SLP modified, was made in Canada, but we are at least near equal trade partners.

After my divorce, I bought everything I could find "made in the USA." I paid a little more for it. I bought glass glasses, made here. I bought towel sets made here. Draped and blinds, dishware, etc. I looked and looked for silverware, but couldn't find any I could trust was made here, so I ended up buying some that was made elsewhere.

I took out all my florescent lights, and bough the Cree brand LED lights, made in the USA. Now they are just assembled here.

I put my money where my mouth is, unlike others.

noonereal · Aug 12, 2019

Sheepdog said:
Yet you cant name one of them.

3 things jump out immediately to any educated person.

Study the line and see if you can understand. You may use the internet as a resource.

I have no energy to explain such rudimentary things.

I'm Supposn · Aug 13, 2019

Lord of Planar said:
... What people don't realize is that there will be a demand created for everyone's wages to increase. They might not increase by the same amount, but the cost of living will rise if minimum wages increase, and then everyone should rightfully expect compensation as well.

Wage differentials are determined by each individual employer. When the minimum wage is increased, all other wage rates generally go up. Lower and lesser middle-wage rate increases are usually immediate.

Almost everyone realizes that increase of the minimum rate, due to the concepts of wage differentials, induce demand for all other wage increases, and the extent of those other increases differ.

The amounts of other wage rate's increases due to an increase of the minimum rate are usually not less, but somewhat greater than that of the minimum rate, but the proportional increase of those other rates are lesser than that of the minimum rate.

Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn · Aug 13, 2019

Lord of Planar said:
Well, keep in mind, I don't believe a minimum wage should be necessary. However, if we are going to have minimum wage standards, then I can see applying a higher value to jobs that require skill vs. those that don't. ...

Lord of Planar, a minimum wage rate is The Minimum Wage Rate for almost all wages; it does not regulate wages or determine the differences between occupational or tasks wages.

But you're proposing the government should further intervene and determine the differences between wage differentials which are now determined by each individual enterprise's managers. I consider that to be an undesirable proposal.

I'm Supposn said:
Wage differentials are determined by each individual employer. When the minimum wage is increased, all other wage rates generally go up. Lower and lesser middle-wage rate increases are usually immediate. ...

I suppose most economists or managers of businesses would be opposed to government undertaking a task for which government can contribute nothing of additional value; but are too likely to inadvertently harm our economy, but I fear there are too many in government that would be eager for government to do so.

Due to similar reasons, many question the tasks undertaken by the Federal Reserve Board are justified. They suppose the board should, as the CBO and the OMB does, have responsibilities to analyze and advise, rather than have any power to actually order or direct any government enactments.

Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn · Aug 13, 2019

bluesmoke said:
Using CPI by region, not by state, would be an improvement if that’s what you also recommend. ...

Bluesmoke, each sovereign state may enact higher minimums within their own jurisdictions. The federal minimum reduces the extent of harm that any state's minimum or lack of minimum can inflict upon any of our nation's other states. Short answer, I'm comfortable with a federal minimum and respect for states' sovereignties.
Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn said:
SDET, the federal minimum wage rate is a minimum rate. States may, and many have enacted a higher minimum within their own jurisdiction.

Delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention determined a federal law was necessary for reducing the economic harm that a U.S. State may deliberately or inadvertently inflict upon any other State, particularly an adjoining state.
The constitution's commerce clause was enabled by delegates from wealthier states agreeing to sacrifice their own states' advantages. Without such compromises, the constitution would not have been ratified and our nation might not have survived to this day. That compromise is no less needed now, as it was in 1787. ...

jet57 · Aug 13, 2019

Drawdown said:
No need to be coy. The 1968 MW had the highest purchasing power in history. It would be $11.86 today and 125% of that would be $14.60

Why not just say you support $15.00 MW?

I support going to $9.50 immediately and then stepping up from there 75 cents every 3 years.

BTW the reason we have MW IMHO is to make it easier to debase the dollar, basically letting inflation liquidate the opportunity cost of debt.

If only prices would stay below that 2.25. That is the real problem.

1: People are making carers out of Mcdonalds; that was problem one.

2: middle class trade jobs have been driven underground as far as money for purchasing power.

3: The investment market has been keeping wages down while prices go up in order to make return on investment.

4: The country's been thrown under the bus in order to service the investment markets.

I'm Supposn · Aug 13, 2019

bluesmoke said:
Using CPI by region, not by state, ... Starting out using the existing min. wage base by state, though, is hardly near a more equivalent state-to-state, region-to-region or locale-to-locale when based on a living wage. Also, once you arrive at your goal, that may not be a living wage, depending on the state or region. That’s why I recommended the living wage model that includes more finite geography for what area a specific minimum wage will be applied.

I would say, though most any statistical model has some subjectivity, the COL model I’ve posted before, and am now posting again, is about as objective and fair (meaning because it applies COL and to more finite areas) as I’ve seen, IMO. To support states and employers getting there, I would recommend federal subsidies, that regress until gone, supporting a set annual percentage increase, like you recommended though not necessarily the same %. The % would be based on how much the federal govt. could subsidize.

Living Wage Calculator

Bluesmoke, when a living-wage is mentioned, I equate it with a living (annual) income.
There is or have somewhere been (extremely few) experimental temporary testing of a “living income” concept. Minimum income is a public assistance concept.

Employer responsible for a living wage that's dependent upon the size of an employee's family is less feasible. Regardless of enforcing any law, employers would give preference to single individuals that do not contribute to the support of their families. That would be preferences for those in lesser, rather than greater need for their wages.

Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn · Aug 13, 2019

Drawdown said:
I have no advocated for differing MW rates, but they do exist at the federal lever (waitresses) and at some state levels (NYC's lower rate for smaller employers)

Drawdown, yes; I sit, (because I'm not standing before my keyboard), corrected. Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn · Aug 13, 2019

Lord of Planar said:
... Now i don't know about shooting for 125% of 1968 purchasing power. Wouldn't 100% be good enough?

Besides, my main point was no sudden large increases at a time, and making them quarterly rather than annual. Makes the adjustments for business and economy easier.

Lord of Planar, the $1.60 minimum wage rate of February-1968 has been reduces by 39%. That's of equivalent adjusted for inflation value of $11.98 in June-2019, a half century later. A 125% of that is less than $15.

Its unreasonable to hope our economy's wages should be somewhat improved for my grandchildren's generation?

Annual adjustments are sufficiently slow durations of deliberations and enactments. Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn · Aug 13, 2019

Drawdown said:
I am not the one arguing for a $15 MW. I do believe the Minimum Wage should be increased some primarily for non-tangibles like utilities, making telecommunications more affordable, the cost of going to the dentist, insurance, etc. I am a proponent of value added taxes or even a national sales tax to put downward pressure on consumption of discretionary tangibles, and would be open to them occurring simultaneously to curb increased pollution that otherwise would occur with increased consumption of goods brought on by the MW increase. Smart metering, nationwide fiber, and all the other bells and whistles technology brings will drive up prices for consumers for services even if the prices for good is more muted.

Lord of Planar said:
I would use utilities, housing, and food. The basic necessities.

Drawdown & Lord of Planar, minimum wage rate is legally enforced upon employers, not their enterprises' products. Respectfully, Supposn

bluesmoke · Aug 13, 2019

I'm Supposn said:
Bluesmoke, each sovereign state may enact higher minimums within their own jurisdictions. The federal minimum reduces the extent of harm that any state's minimum or lack of minimum can inflict upon any of our nation's other states. Short answer, I'm comfortable with a federal minimum and respect for states' sovereignties.
Respectfully, Supposn

I agree that each state can enact higher minimums than the federal minimum wage. I can’t tell that you disagree with my COL/CPI recommendation or remain with what you recommended by your reply. I think it would be impossible to impose federal jurisdiction of minimum wage by area upon a state, thus only statewide, but would still publish to the states federal recommended COL by locale for each state as they may see fit to use. There are no sovereign individual states in America. The only sovereign state is the USA.

I'm Supposn · Dec 17, 2020

It's constitutional:
Those opposed to a federal minimum wage rate contend there is no mention of such federal power within the U.S. constitution. The 10th constitutional amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.

Proponents of our federal minimum wage rate laws point to (Article VI, Clause 2), “all laws enacted by the state governments must comply with the Constitution, and that whenever a law enacted by a state conflicts with a federal law, the federal law must be applied”; the words “provide for the common defense and general welfare” which appear within the constitution’s preamble and again within section 8 of the constitution’s first article which is entirely devoted to the powers of congress; and the last word of article 1, section 8, “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof”.
Respectfully, Supposn

bluesmoke · Dec 17, 2020

I'm Supposn said:
It's constitutional:
Those opposed to a federal minimum wage rate contend there is no mention of such federal power within the U.S. constitution. The 10th constitutional amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.

Proponents of our federal minimum wage rate laws point to (Article VI, Clause 2), “all laws enacted by the state governments must comply with the Constitution, and that whenever a law enacted by a state conflicts with a federal law, the federal law must be applied”; the words “provide for the common defense and general welfare” which appear within the constitution’s preamble and again within section 8 of the constitution’s first article which is entirely devoted to the powers of congress; and the last word of article 1, section 8, “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof”.
Respectfully, Supposn

I recognize the fed govt has the right to set MW. I don't think it would be possible to have both houses of Congress, the prez and enough states agree to there being imposed a plan by locale within each state, though I agree with it. It's rather idealistic. State-by-state would be more realistic, still difficult, and if successful, at some point in the future by the feds could be possible. About the only way I see it happening any time sooner is if the feds subsidize business to pay LW for some period of time, gradually backing off the subsidy.

I'm Supposn · Dec 17, 2020

bluesmoke said:
I recognize the fed govt has the right to set MW. I don't think it would be possible to have both houses of Congress, the prez and enough states agree to there being imposed a plan by locale within each state, though I agree with it. It's rather idealistic. State-by-state would be more realistic, still difficult, and if successful, at some point in the future by the feds could be possible. About the only way I see it happening any time sooner is if the feds subsidize business to pay LW for some period of time, gradually backing off the subsidy.

BlueSmoke, to the extent of its purchasing power, the federal minimum wage rate reduces the incidences and extent of poverty among USA’s working-poor and their dependents. That’s Its purpose and justification.

Because it’s a federal minimum it reduces the extent that a state can undermine the labor markets within any other of USA’s states. Effectively each state may increase the minimum within their own jurisdictions. Beyond the federal minimum, each state chooses to set their own minimum rate.

Why would you believe there’s a need or an advantage for subsidizing the federal minimum wage?
Minimum rate laws more than permit, they encourage enterprises to achieve the most efficient methods for producing distributing their products. Automation has and I believe will continue to be in our nation’s best economic interests. Nations of human labors’ lesser worth and slower to adopt automation, are characteristic of the poorest economies and living standards.
Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn · Dec 17, 2020

Drawdown said:
No need to be coy. The 1968 MW had the highest purchasing power in history. It would be $11.86 today and 125% of that would be $14.60 . Why not just say you support $15.00 MW?

Drawdown, I don’t, (or not deliberately) post coyly.
I object to Democrats stupidly framing the minimum rate issue in a manner that’s to their opponents’ best interests. Democrats are too timid to mention that the U.S. dollar has no fixed value, or they apparently believe those who would vote Democrat are unaware and cannot understand the concept of currency inflation. The Democratic National Committee’s, (i.e. DNC’s) evaluation of Democratic voters’ intelligence, is disrespectful and lesser respectful than Republican leaders’ estimations Democratic voters. Republicans are pleased to assist DNC move their intended goal posts further away from themselves.

I’m among the proponent for USA’s human labor to evolve being more, rather than less valuable. If a minimum wage targeted to eventually reach no less than 125% of its February-1968 value didn’t pass through congress in 2020, I’m a proponent of exactly the same proposal for 2021; I’m opposed to proposing $15 per hour which is of somewhat lesser value at Christmas day, 2021. Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn · Dec 17, 2020

Drawdown said:
... BTW the reason we have MW IMHO is to make it easier to debase the dollar, basically letting inflation liquidate the opportunity cost of debt.

Drawdown, Federal minimum rate is not among the primary drivers of inflation. It is not a cause, but rather it's among inflation's prime victims. There’s no need to facilitate the U.S. dollar’s debasement. The dollar’s inflation continues with little regard for the federal minimum rate.
Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn · Dec 20, 2020

Sheepdog said:
As opposed to massive inflation and extremely poor purchasing power for an increasing amount of people?

Sheepdog, the federal minimum wage rate’s not among the primary causes of inflation. Inflation occurs regardless of the minimum wage rate and the minimum rate’s certainly among its primary victims.

To the extent of its purchasing power and enforcement, the federal minimum wage rate reduces incidences and extents of poverty in the USA. That’s its purpose and justification. Respectfully, Supposn

ttwtt78640 · Dec 20, 2020

I'm Supposn said:
Sheepdog, Abolishing both the definite minimum wage rate and our public assistance programs would cause the indefinite market-determined minimum wage rate to race down to extremely poor purchasing power and great national poverty would prevail. That would not be good for business.

Respectfully, Supposn

Hmm... why do you assume that businesses would do things which are bad for business? BTW, many state/local governments have MW rates which are above the federal MW level.

As it stands now, less than 3% of the US labor force earns the (hourly) MW (or less). Why would it be advantageous to have that percentage increased?

I do favor indexing (automatically annually increasing) the federal MW to CPI inflation - much like is now done for the SS retirement benefit level.

Why a federal minimum wage law?

Sometimes wrong