5 ms·

I'm just wondering why we seem so fixated on 15$. Have we considered if 9$, 12$ or any other value might be more optimal from a utilitarian perspective?

by obenn 7y ago

js2 7y ago
Yes, the CBO report considers three options: > The first option would raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour as of January 1, 2025. That increase would be implemented in six annual increments starting on January 1, 2020. After reaching $15 in 2025, the minimum wage would be indexed, or tied, to median hourly wages. The $15 option would also gradually eliminate exceptions to the minimum wage for tipped workers, teenage workers, and disabled workers. > The second option would raise the federal minimum wage to $12 per hour as of January 1, 2025. The $12 option would be implemented on the same timeline as the $15 option but would not index the minimum wage to wage growth after 2025. It would leave in place current exceptions. > The third option would raise the federal minimum wage to $10 per hour as of January 1, 2025. The $10 option would be implemented on the same timeline as the $15 and $12 options. Like the $12 option, it would not index the minimum wage to wage growth and would leave in place current exceptions. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55410 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55410
dstaley 7y ago
I don't understand why the federal minimum wage isn't pegged to regional costs of living. I'm sure a $15 minimum makes sense in San Francisco, but should we force small, rural towns to also pay $15?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dehrmann 7y ago
  It really should be, and policies like this make progressives come across as coastal elites to people making $20 per hour in small towns.
- ddingus 7y ago
  That's the question Oregon asked. What they ended up doing was a tiered minimum, based on regions and economic studies. In the Portland area, $15 is barely enough. Reasonable minimum target. This is true for various places along the I-5 corridor. Maybe Bend too. In other regions, it may be $12, or even $11, depending. Overall, it's reasonable and the expectation is increased demand will not impact the number of people having jobs much at all. I agree with you. What should be done is a baseline study every few years. Take some basic metrics: Housing Food Transportation Health Care (overlooked now, but should not be, or we do universal care to keep it factored out) Utilities, water, power, etc. Roll all that up into a "just making it" index of some sorts and work from there. My thoughts on this have arrived at a place where I do not see it being productive for labor to yield an income less than it actually does cost to exist and show up for work. When we do that, it's a subsidy, and we are all paying indirectly, and for some, very directly as those costs do accrue no matter what, and they get paid by someone no matter what, or people simply do not exist and or show up for work. Often, the more direct payments fall on family and others close to the person unable to labor and meet basic needs. This gets expensive. Retirement, and other bigger picture things are impacted, and because we do not see those outcomes present right away, they too get ignored. For all of us, taxes and such needed to fund services are indirect payments --subsidies essentially. In some cases, a subsidy makes sense. Happy to do my part. However, in a general sense, I really do not want to be subsidizing businesses that could operate just fine and pay labor what it costs to exist and show up for work.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  Just use the CoL adjustment table that the .gov uses for its own employees. That at least gives the .gov somewhat of an incentive to keep it fair.
- mc32 7y ago
  Same here. They should set a minimum FedCore wage and each county, not each state, sets a CoLA. So the local min wage would be FedCore + County CoLA. CoLA would ideally be the one of the residence of the worker.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
anbop 7y ago
People are fixated on $15 because for decades they have seen no increase in the nominal wage for 10 years and no real increase for 50. So, they are more susceptible to the demagoguery of a Bernie Sanders who shouts "$15! $15!" than they would have been if they had been treated with humanity and dignity for the previous 2 generations.
undersuit 7y ago
$15/hour is enough to put a family of four right above the US poverty level. $15/hour * 40 hours/week * 50 weeks - (~$3000 in Federal Taxation) = $27,000 https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines IMO, a minimum wage full-time employ shouldn't be a liveable wage for a teenager, it should be a liveable wage for almost everyone.

I'm just wondering why we seem so fixated on 15$. Have we considered if 9$, 12$ or any other value might be more optimal from a utilitarian perspective?

by obenn 7y ago

I'm just wondering why we seem so fixated on 15$. Have we considered if 9$, 12$ or any other value might be more optimal from a utilitarian perspective?

js2 7y ago

Yes, the CBO report considers three options: > The first option would raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour as of January 1, 2025. That increase would be implemented in six annual increments starting on January 1, 2020. After reaching $15 in 2025, the minimum wage would be indexed, or tied, to median hourly wages. The $15 option would also gradually eliminate exceptions to the minimum wage for tipped workers, teenage workers, and disabled workers. > The second option would raise the federal minimum wage to $12 per hour as of January 1, 2025. The $12 option would be implemented on the same timeline as the $15 option but would not index the minimum wage to wage growth after 2025. It would leave in place current exceptions. > The third option would raise the federal minimum wage to $10 per hour as of January 1, 2025. The $10 option would be implemented on the same timeline as the $15 and $12 options. Like the $12 option, it would not index the minimum wage to wage growth and would leave in place current exceptions. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55410 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55410

dstaley 7y ago

I don't understand why the federal minimum wage isn't pegged to regional costs of living. I'm sure a $15 minimum makes sense in San Francisco, but should we force small, rural towns to also pay $15?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dehrmann 7y ago
It really should be, and policies like this make progressives come across as coastal elites to people making $20 per hour in small towns.
ddingus 7y ago
That's the question Oregon asked. What they ended up doing was a tiered minimum, based on regions and economic studies. In the Portland area, $15 is barely enough. Reasonable minimum target. This is true for various places along the I-5 corridor. Maybe Bend too. In other regions, it may be $12, or even $11, depending. Overall, it's reasonable and the expectation is increased demand will not impact the number of people having jobs much at all. I agree with you. What should be done is a baseline study every few years. Take some basic metrics: Housing Food Transportation Health Care (overlooked now, but should not be, or we do universal care to keep it factored out) Utilities, water, power, etc. Roll all that up into a "just making it" index of some sorts and work from there. My thoughts on this have arrived at a place where I do not see it being productive for labor to yield an income less than it actually does cost to exist and show up for work. When we do that, it's a subsidy, and we are all paying indirectly, and for some, very directly as those costs do accrue no matter what, and they get paid by someone no matter what, or people simply do not exist and or show up for work. Often, the more direct payments fall on family and others close to the person unable to labor and meet basic needs. This gets expensive. Retirement, and other bigger picture things are impacted, and because we do not see those outcomes present right away, they too get ignored. For all of us, taxes and such needed to fund services are indirect payments --subsidies essentially. In some cases, a subsidy makes sense. Happy to do my part. However, in a general sense, I really do not want to be subsidizing businesses that could operate just fine and pay labor what it costs to exist and show up for work.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
Just use the CoL adjustment table that the .gov uses for its own employees. That at least gives the .gov somewhat of an incentive to keep it fair.
mc32 7y ago
Same here. They should set a minimum FedCore wage and each county, not each state, sets a CoLA. So the local min wage would be FedCore + County CoLA. CoLA would ideally be the one of the residence of the worker.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

anbop 7y ago

People are fixated on $15 because for decades they have seen no increase in the nominal wage for 10 years and no real increase for 50. So, they are more susceptible to the demagoguery of a Bernie Sanders who shouts "$15! $15!" than they would have been if they had been treated with humanity and dignity for the previous 2 generations.

undersuit 7y ago

$15/hour is enough to put a family of four right above the US poverty level. $15/hour * 40 hours/week * 50 weeks - (~$3000 in Federal Taxation) = $27,000 https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines IMO, a minimum wage full-time employ shouldn't be a liveable wage for a teenager, it should be a liveable wage for almost everyone.