4 ms·

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 for

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.

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.