4 ms·

Problem the feds tend to have is imposing universal rules on an economically diverse country. 50k is good money some places and poverty wages other places. I on

Problem the feds tend to have is imposing universal rules on an economically diverse country. 50k is good money some places and poverty wages other places. I once joked to my GF that I was going to write a book called, How to be Flat Fucking Broke in San Francisco for only $300/day. Old idea of mine was for salaried worker payroll taxes and withholding should be based on hours worked. With the employer picking up 100% of the difference. Example, $100k/year is $50/hour at a standard 40hr/week. If the employer has salaried workers working 50 hours a week. Then the adjusted income subject to taxes is $125k/year. And make the employer pay the difference in taxes and withholding.

alfalfasprout 3y ago
There is almost nowhere where "50k is good money". It may be above average in a certain area, but cost of housing has increased broadly nationwide even in rural areas.
- Gibbon1 3y ago
  You're likely right about that. I'm often a bit gobsmacked of late how expensive housing has got in places where it shouldn't be.
lotsofpulp 3y ago
Feds only impose a floor. Higher cost states are always welcome to enact higher standards, and they do. Washington’s minimum exempt salary is $65.5k, and California is $65k, plus California requires overtime after 8 hours per day. Note that the Feds have not even actually increased it yet, it is just proposed and even if it goes into effect, it will probably be 2024 or maybe even later.
- OkayPhysicist 3y ago
  IMO the >8 hrs/day rule should definitely go national. No one should feel compelled to throw away 100% of their waking hours to a job.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > Feds only impose a floor. But then what is it for? It's representatives from California deciding what the minimum wage should be in Texas and not what it will be in California. The people in those states in many cases have higher PPP than people in higher cost areas but also have a higher unemployment rate that the externally-imposed floor only makes worse. If the people in Texas want a higher floor they can enact it themselves. But they don't, and they may not be wrong, because different states have different economies.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    >But then what is it for? Setting a national floor. > It's representatives from California deciding what the minimum wage should be in Texas and not what it will be in California. No, it is the United States’ representatives setting a floor for the United States. > If the people in Texas want a higher floor they can enact it themselves. If the people in Texas want a lower floor, they are welcome to try and leave the US. >But they don't, and they may not be wrong, because different states have different economies. So do different counties and cities and parts of cities. It is all arbitrarily defined, and at the end of the day, might makes right. Hence, feds set the floor in Texas (currently).
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > Setting a national floor. That's what it does, not what it's for. Why is it good to force misaligned economic policy on various jurisdictions whose people don't want it? > No, it is the United States’ representatives setting a floor for the United States. The United States doesn't have representatives in the national legislature. States and districts do. > If the people in Texas want a lower floor, they are welcome to try and leave the US. Or to repeal the national floor, presumably, but then representatives from California try to stop them even though the national floor does not apply to anyone they represent. > It is all arbitrarily defined, and at the end of the day, might makes right. I'm not asking for an analysis of electoral math. I'm asking why the federal government should override state and local governments who, representing the will of their own populations, judge such rules to be counterproductive given the state of their local economy.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Problem the feds tend to have is imposing universal rules on an economically diverse country. Federal policy can and does (not usually in individual-related rules like minimum wage and salary thresholds, but that’s a choice, not a fundamental barrier) take state and local economic conditions into account.

alfalfasprout 3y ago

There is almost nowhere where "50k is good money". It may be above average in a certain area, but cost of housing has increased broadly nationwide even in rural areas.

Gibbon1 3y ago
You're likely right about that. I'm often a bit gobsmacked of late how expensive housing has got in places where it shouldn't be.

lotsofpulp 3y ago

Feds only impose a floor. Higher cost states are always welcome to enact higher standards, and they do. Washington’s minimum exempt salary is $65.5k, and California is $65k, plus California requires overtime after 8 hours per day. Note that the Feds have not even actually increased it yet, it is just proposed and even if it goes into effect, it will probably be 2024 or maybe even later.

OkayPhysicist 3y ago
IMO the >8 hrs/day rule should definitely go national. No one should feel compelled to throw away 100% of their waking hours to a job.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> Feds only impose a floor. But then what is it for? It's representatives from California deciding what the minimum wage should be in Texas and not what it will be in California. The people in those states in many cases have higher PPP than people in higher cost areas but also have a higher unemployment rate that the externally-imposed floor only makes worse. If the people in Texas want a higher floor they can enact it themselves. But they don't, and they may not be wrong, because different states have different economies.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  >But then what is it for? Setting a national floor. > It's representatives from California deciding what the minimum wage should be in Texas and not what it will be in California. No, it is the United States’ representatives setting a floor for the United States. > If the people in Texas want a higher floor they can enact it themselves. If the people in Texas want a lower floor, they are welcome to try and leave the US. >But they don't, and they may not be wrong, because different states have different economies. So do different counties and cities and parts of cities. It is all arbitrarily defined, and at the end of the day, might makes right. Hence, feds set the floor in Texas (currently).
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > Setting a national floor. That's what it does, not what it's for. Why is it good to force misaligned economic policy on various jurisdictions whose people don't want it? > No, it is the United States’ representatives setting a floor for the United States. The United States doesn't have representatives in the national legislature. States and districts do. > If the people in Texas want a lower floor, they are welcome to try and leave the US. Or to repeal the national floor, presumably, but then representatives from California try to stop them even though the national floor does not apply to anyone they represent. > It is all arbitrarily defined, and at the end of the day, might makes right. I'm not asking for an analysis of electoral math. I'm asking why the federal government should override state and local governments who, representing the will of their own populations, judge such rules to be counterproductive given the state of their local economy.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Problem the feds tend to have is imposing universal rules on an economically diverse country. Federal policy can and does (not usually in individual-related rules like minimum wage and salary thresholds, but that’s a choice, not a fundamental barrier) take state and local economic conditions into account.