3 ms·
So it's a good thing for the government to set a minimum wage of $21/hr but a bad thing for the government to set a minimum wage of $50/hr (100k/year). Where is
by slibhb 4y ago
So it's a good thing for the government to set a minimum wage of $21/hr but a bad thing for the government to set a minimum wage of $50/hr (100k/year). Where is the cut off exactly?
- paranoidrobot 4y agoIt's not a single fixed number. It is, or should be, a living wage[1]. Someone in full employment should be able to meet their basic needs and that of any dependants. This includes things like healthcare, housing, food, transport, etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage
- defrost 4y agoAhhh .. we had that debate at length 116 years ago in Australia. Harvester Judgement In 1907 Justice Henry Bourne Higgins, President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court, set the first federally arbitrated wages standard in Australia. Using the Sunshine Harvester Factory as a test case, Justice Higgins took the pioneering approach of hearing evidence from not only male workers but also their wives to determine what was a fair and reasonable wage for a working man to support a family of five. It's been modified and tweaked a few times since but the minimum wage (in a G-20 country with AAA credit rating and consistently performent GDP, good health and education, etc) is generally bench marked to support food and housing for an atomic family unit. I dare say central north america might make some movement there within a century or two.