4 ms·

>The best solution appears to be to raise the minimum wage to a level that can support a person without government assistance and index it for inflation. Which

>The best solution appears to be to raise the minimum wage to a level that can support a person without government assistance and index it for inflation. Which person? I contend that the person should be a 4 person family(so that I can throw out the oft proposed $15/hr rate fitting pretty closely with the US federal poverty rate of a similar family after taxes.) Other people say minimum wage is only for teenagers entering the work force.

monocasa 7y ago
Well, luckliy FDR himself discussed the concept in a speech as he signed one of the base laws to allow a federal minimum wage. > In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living. Given that (and the context of these words in the late '30s), I'd say supporting a family of four is closer than teenagers who don't need the money.
- btilly 7y ago
  It is worth noting that the rise of wealth in our society means that "decent living" by the standards of the 1930s means "extreme poverty" by today's standards. More precisely the real value of median income tripled from the 1930s to the 1980s. Lower income brackets did likewise. So it is historically incorrect to hear FDR say "decent living" and map it onto current notions of a decent living. Separately, we have many decades of experience with the program that FDR didn't, and therefore our opinions today can be better informed than his way. Therefore there is no particular reason that we today should feel bound to agree with his original views.
  - Ericson2314 7y ago
    If you measure it in calories or other form of nutrition, did it triple? If you define poverty not by an absolute standard of living but the poverty trap (the range where the rest of society trivially exploits you, intentionally or not, and you cannot advance as they do), does it triple?
    - marcusverus 7y ago
      In what way are the poor exploited?
      - sudosysgen 7y ago
        They possess essentially no power in labour negotiations, and most of them live under the yoke of debt.
        marcusverus 7y ago
        I agree with those statements, and still dispute your use of the word 'exploit' insomuch as it implies unfairness or some kind of wrongdoing on the part of society. Society has implemented welfare safety nets and minimum wages for the express purpose of improving the lot of the poor, at a non-trivial cost to the rest (i.e. financial net-contributors) of society. The wages that the poor are able to command (above the proscribed price floor) are the result of market forces of supply and demand; the prevalence of unskilled labor results in low pay--not society or greedy business owners. The fact that society doesn't do even more to put money in the pockets of the poor can't be 'exploitation', unless you're 'exploiting' a homeless man when you put a dollar in his cup, when you could've put two. Unless you're talking about loansharks, pay-day-lenders, and that sort of thing, in which case you're right, screw those guys.
      - dang 7y ago
        Please don't take HN threads into generic ideological arguments. They're off topic here. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20generic&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

monocasa 7y ago

Well, luckliy FDR himself discussed the concept in a speech as he signed one of the base laws to allow a federal minimum wage. > In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living. Given that (and the context of these words in the late '30s), I'd say supporting a family of four is closer than teenagers who don't need the money.

btilly 7y ago
It is worth noting that the rise of wealth in our society means that "decent living" by the standards of the 1930s means "extreme poverty" by today's standards. More precisely the real value of median income tripled from the 1930s to the 1980s. Lower income brackets did likewise. So it is historically incorrect to hear FDR say "decent living" and map it onto current notions of a decent living. Separately, we have many decades of experience with the program that FDR didn't, and therefore our opinions today can be better informed than his way. Therefore there is no particular reason that we today should feel bound to agree with his original views.
- Ericson2314 7y ago
  If you measure it in calories or other form of nutrition, did it triple? If you define poverty not by an absolute standard of living but the poverty trap (the range where the rest of society trivially exploits you, intentionally or not, and you cannot advance as they do), does it triple?
  - marcusverus 7y ago
    In what way are the poor exploited?
    - sudosysgen 7y ago
      They possess essentially no power in labour negotiations, and most of them live under the yoke of debt.
      - marcusverus 7y ago
        I agree with those statements, and still dispute your use of the word 'exploit' insomuch as it implies unfairness or some kind of wrongdoing on the part of society. Society has implemented welfare safety nets and minimum wages for the express purpose of improving the lot of the poor, at a non-trivial cost to the rest (i.e. financial net-contributors) of society. The wages that the poor are able to command (above the proscribed price floor) are the result of market forces of supply and demand; the prevalence of unskilled labor results in low pay--not society or greedy business owners. The fact that society doesn't do even more to put money in the pockets of the poor can't be 'exploitation', unless you're 'exploiting' a homeless man when you put a dollar in his cup, when you could've put two. Unless you're talking about loansharks, pay-day-lenders, and that sort of thing, in which case you're right, screw those guys.
    - dang 7y ago
      Please don't take HN threads into generic ideological arguments. They're off topic here. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20generic&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html