4 ms·

The reality is that if the minimum wage had stayed consistent with productivity and inflation since 1968, America’s lowest earners would be making around $24 an

The reality is that if the minimum wage had stayed consistent with productivity and inflation since 1968, America’s lowest earners would be making around $24 an hour by now, an analysis by Jacobin found last year. Fifteen dollars is not asking for a lot. In fact, it’s asking for less than the bare minimum of what we should be providing our workers.

lvkv 5y ago
Link to that article: https://jacobinmag.com/2020/01/higher-minimum-wage-inflation-productivity https://jacobinmag.com/2020/01/higher-minimum-wage-inflation...
krickkrack 5y ago
Well the reality is also that if $24/hr was the minimum wage the price of items would be through the roof and that $24/hr would be worth less than what the $15/hr is worth now. No such thing as a free lunch. You can't just inflate a persons worth without having to pay for it somehow.
- slater 5y ago
  the (allegedly taking-all-the-risks) folks at the very tippy-top could also earn a little bit less. y'know, even out the playing field a millimeter or two.
  - djbebs 5y ago
    Why should they?
    - truckerbill 5y ago
      Because wealth generation is a positive feedback loop which creates a winner-take-all situation. And a persons starting conditions are based on luck. And roughly speaking, the relationship between money and well-being is non-linear, shaped like a log curve. So three kinds of unfair.
      - krickkrack 5y ago
        If you want to talk about fairness, imagine the guy who started near the bottom, made his way out of dire circumstances, climbed to the top through hard work and perserverance sacrificing his 20s and 30s (all while his friends sat around smoking weed, having families, enjoying life) and now someone like you comes along and takes ~50% of what he makes, in order to give it to those guys he knows did nothing to earn it.
        truckerbill 5y ago
        I’m willing to bet you’re still comfortable. Especially if your effective tax rate is anywhere near that. The point is to see past your own pile of coin and think about society as a whole. If people were up for sacrificing that second holiday house and their stupid expensive watch or whatever, so much good would come of it. Inequality fuels crime , public services like trains suffer etc... I think ‘giving money to free loaders’ is a bit of a straw man, as the second order effects benefit everyone. Including you. And note I’m not advocating communism.
        slater 5y ago
        If you want to talk about fairness, imagine the guy who had everything handed to him, born into a wealthy family, with parents getting him into a top-notch college despite horrible grades, and... I can't even finish, but you get the idea. We can sit around making up what-if hypothetical tropes till the cows come home, and nothing will change. The rich at the very top just get richer.
LatteLazy 5y ago
We don't really have a definition for productivity for most labour, let alone a measure. I take your wider point that it should be higher, but any economic arguement invoking productivity is suspect...
ActorNightly 5y ago
The technology industry sector productivity has exploded, but to tie that back into average productivity in support of minimum wage is poor analysis.
labcomputer 5y ago
The reality is that 1968 had the highest inflation-adjusted minimum wage ever in the united states. I'm not sure it makes sense to compare to an outlier.
- u801e 5y ago
  According to this chart [1] showing the inflation adjusted minimum wage over the years, it should be closer to $11 to match the dollar value it typically had most of the years it was in place. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Timeline_of_federal_minimum_hourly_wage_for_nonfarm_workers_for_the_United_States._And_inflation-adjusted.gif/1280px-Timeline_of_federal_minimum_hourly_wage_for_nonfarm_workers_for_the_United_States._And_inflation-adjusted.gif https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Ti...
  - saltysallys 5y ago
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=EZn4 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=EZn4
- mannykannot 5y ago
  A maximum is not necessarily - or even normally - an outlier.
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    Sure, but we’re not making general statements. This one is.
    - mannykannot 5y ago
      Sure, in general, that would be something to take into consideration - but in this specific case, the maximum is not an outlier. Apparently (based on the comment I was replying to), labcomputer does seem to think the maximum is an outlier, and that this false generality applies here.
randyrand 5y ago
I hate this argument. It is so flawed. When productivity increased, minimum wage earners do make more. Overall productivity increases don't increase profits. They reduce prices! Workers make more because everything costs less. If you increased minimum wage with productivity, it would eclipse the highest earners in a matter of decades. It makes no sense to do that.
- neilwilson 5y ago
  "Overall productivity increases don't increase profits. They reduce prices! Workers make more because everything costs less." That only applies in an economy without credit and where sales are constrained by the spending of the wage share. In an economy with credit you can use financialisation to give people spending power their wages don't permit, which keeps prices higher than they would otherwise be and allows more to flow to the profit share. The dynamics then drives the path of interest rates down over the years until you get a credit crunch - at which point the lack of spending from the profit share suddenly shows up in a Minsky Moment.
  - j4kp07 5y ago
    Please try and explain this to a single mom running a hair salon or a married couple that owns a BBQ restaurant. I expect that they may laugh at you and ask you to leave.
  - randyrand 5y ago
    Short term sure, but the overall big picture is the same.
    - neilwilson 5y ago
      There is no equilibrating condition in the dynamics that brings that about and certainly nothing that is politically viable. There's an inductive connection between the monetary economy and the real economy, not a direct one. It works more like an iPhone charger than a 1 bar electric fire, and that means you need greater monetary 'apparent power' to get the maximum level of real economy 'true power'.
j4kp07 5y ago
They always pick the year 1968 and not the year minimum wage was introduced. Always. I'll leave it to you to figure out 'Why'.
compressedgas 5y ago
That $24 is $7.50 in 1980 dollars adjusted for inflation to 2020 dollars.
dehrmann 5y ago
At least in 2019, you could say there's clearly a surplus of low-skilled labor. In 2021, it's a lot more mixed because of people relocating due to covid, so it hasn't quite settled down yet, and there are genuine unskilled labor shortages in large metros. It's gonna be a brutal snap back, or there will be an even larger class of nuemployable, due to covid-driven automation.
refurb 5y ago
That’s seems like an unreasonable conclusion. If productivity is driven by industries with no minimum wage workers, why would the benefit of that productivity pass to them?
s1artibartfast 5y ago
How much more productive is a person flipping burgers or bagging groceries now than 1968? I'm guessing that productivity numbers used are for the economy at large.

lvkv 5y ago

Link to that article: https://jacobinmag.com/2020/01/higher-minimum-wage-inflation-productivity https://jacobinmag.com/2020/01/higher-minimum-wage-inflation...

krickkrack 5y ago

Well the reality is also that if $24/hr was the minimum wage the price of items would be through the roof and that $24/hr would be worth less than what the $15/hr is worth now. No such thing as a free lunch. You can't just inflate a persons worth without having to pay for it somehow.

slater 5y ago
the (allegedly taking-all-the-risks) folks at the very tippy-top could also earn a little bit less. y'know, even out the playing field a millimeter or two.
- djbebs 5y ago
  Why should they?
  - truckerbill 5y ago
    Because wealth generation is a positive feedback loop which creates a winner-take-all situation. And a persons starting conditions are based on luck. And roughly speaking, the relationship between money and well-being is non-linear, shaped like a log curve. So three kinds of unfair.
    - krickkrack 5y ago
      If you want to talk about fairness, imagine the guy who started near the bottom, made his way out of dire circumstances, climbed to the top through hard work and perserverance sacrificing his 20s and 30s (all while his friends sat around smoking weed, having families, enjoying life) and now someone like you comes along and takes ~50% of what he makes, in order to give it to those guys he knows did nothing to earn it.
      - truckerbill 5y ago
        I’m willing to bet you’re still comfortable. Especially if your effective tax rate is anywhere near that. The point is to see past your own pile of coin and think about society as a whole. If people were up for sacrificing that second holiday house and their stupid expensive watch or whatever, so much good would come of it. Inequality fuels crime , public services like trains suffer etc... I think ‘giving money to free loaders’ is a bit of a straw man, as the second order effects benefit everyone. Including you. And note I’m not advocating communism.
      - slater 5y ago
        If you want to talk about fairness, imagine the guy who had everything handed to him, born into a wealthy family, with parents getting him into a top-notch college despite horrible grades, and... I can't even finish, but you get the idea. We can sit around making up what-if hypothetical tropes till the cows come home, and nothing will change. The rich at the very top just get richer.

LatteLazy 5y ago

We don't really have a definition for productivity for most labour, let alone a measure. I take your wider point that it should be higher, but any economic arguement invoking productivity is suspect...

ActorNightly 5y ago

The technology industry sector productivity has exploded, but to tie that back into average productivity in support of minimum wage is poor analysis.

labcomputer 5y ago

The reality is that 1968 had the highest inflation-adjusted minimum wage ever in the united states. I'm not sure it makes sense to compare to an outlier.

u801e 5y ago
According to this chart [1] showing the inflation adjusted minimum wage over the years, it should be closer to $11 to match the dollar value it typically had most of the years it was in place. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Timeline_of_federal_minimum_hourly_wage_for_nonfarm_workers_for_the_United_States._And_inflation-adjusted.gif/1280px-Timeline_of_federal_minimum_hourly_wage_for_nonfarm_workers_for_the_United_States._And_inflation-adjusted.gif https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Ti...
- saltysallys 5y ago
  https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=EZn4 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=EZn4
mannykannot 5y ago
A maximum is not necessarily - or even normally - an outlier.
- renewiltord 5y ago
  Sure, but we’re not making general statements. This one is.
  - mannykannot 5y ago
    Sure, in general, that would be something to take into consideration - but in this specific case, the maximum is not an outlier. Apparently (based on the comment I was replying to), labcomputer does seem to think the maximum is an outlier, and that this false generality applies here.

randyrand 5y ago

I hate this argument. It is so flawed. When productivity increased, minimum wage earners do make more. Overall productivity increases don't increase profits. They reduce prices! Workers make more because everything costs less. If you increased minimum wage with productivity, it would eclipse the highest earners in a matter of decades. It makes no sense to do that.

neilwilson 5y ago
"Overall productivity increases don't increase profits. They reduce prices! Workers make more because everything costs less." That only applies in an economy without credit and where sales are constrained by the spending of the wage share. In an economy with credit you can use financialisation to give people spending power their wages don't permit, which keeps prices higher than they would otherwise be and allows more to flow to the profit share. The dynamics then drives the path of interest rates down over the years until you get a credit crunch - at which point the lack of spending from the profit share suddenly shows up in a Minsky Moment.
- j4kp07 5y ago
  Please try and explain this to a single mom running a hair salon or a married couple that owns a BBQ restaurant. I expect that they may laugh at you and ask you to leave.
- randyrand 5y ago
  Short term sure, but the overall big picture is the same.
  - neilwilson 5y ago
    There is no equilibrating condition in the dynamics that brings that about and certainly nothing that is politically viable. There's an inductive connection between the monetary economy and the real economy, not a direct one. It works more like an iPhone charger than a 1 bar electric fire, and that means you need greater monetary 'apparent power' to get the maximum level of real economy 'true power'.

j4kp07 5y ago

They always pick the year 1968 and not the year minimum wage was introduced. Always. I'll leave it to you to figure out 'Why'.

compressedgas 5y ago

That $24 is $7.50 in 1980 dollars adjusted for inflation to 2020 dollars.

dehrmann 5y ago

At least in 2019, you could say there's clearly a surplus of low-skilled labor. In 2021, it's a lot more mixed because of people relocating due to covid, so it hasn't quite settled down yet, and there are genuine unskilled labor shortages in large metros. It's gonna be a brutal snap back, or there will be an even larger class of nuemployable, due to covid-driven automation.

refurb 5y ago

That’s seems like an unreasonable conclusion. If productivity is driven by industries with no minimum wage workers, why would the benefit of that productivity pass to them?

s1artibartfast 5y ago

How much more productive is a person flipping burgers or bagging groceries now than 1968? I'm guessing that productivity numbers used are for the economy at large.