I think I see both sides of the issue, the case for a livable minimum wage has merits, but I'm afraid I overly don't support it (especially nationally); it's just way too big of a change and increase, both compared to the current policy and to other advanced countries (though most do indeed provide more benefits) and there's too big a chance that companies would become yet much more reluctant to hire people. Additionally a lot of minors don't need to make a livable wage from their first job and if a lot of adults are stuck at and can't advance past those positions and wages that seems a different issue that could be better improved in other ways.
(US) Do you support a $15 minimum wage?
- Thread starter Robert Maxwell
- Start date
I would just like to point out how strange it is you will find people saying this:
But the same people never say something like:
Why do the bottom- and middle-rung employees have to justify getting a pay increase, while executives and investors don't? I'm thinking the people who basically get to arbitrarily decide how much they get paid should be under a lot more scrutiny. After all, isn't it fucked up when a company responds to a bad quarter by terminating a bunch of line employees, while the CEO gets to exit gracefully with millions of dollars? I'm thinking the people who just lost their jobs might need that money a little more than the CEO.
But the same people never say something like:
Why do the bottom- and middle-rung employees have to justify getting a pay increase, while executives and investors don't? I'm thinking the people who basically get to arbitrarily decide how much they get paid should be under a lot more scrutiny. After all, isn't it fucked up when a company responds to a bad quarter by terminating a bunch of line employees, while the CEO gets to exit gracefully with millions of dollars? I'm thinking the people who just lost their jobs might need that money a little more than the CEO.
I would agree with you there. At my job, the President of the organization now pulls in over 325,000 a year and tends to get raises every year, in fact, has averaged about 10% or more every year. That from the initial 150,000 salary the first year. Except for promotions, which give a small increase; the average pay raise for employees the last 9 years has equaled 0%.
It is interesting that our president calls on the employees to make sacrifices, and most of us do; our sacrifice is that we still work there even though we haven't had an overall raise in almost a decade; although we will probably reach that objective this year.
I would disagree with suarezguy in terms of believing that minors should not receive the same wages though. I would say if older workers get $15 then younger should get $15.
It is interesting that our president calls on the employees to make sacrifices, and most of us do; our sacrifice is that we still work there even though we haven't had an overall raise in almost a decade; although we will probably reach that objective this year.
I would disagree with suarezguy in terms of believing that minors should not receive the same wages though. I would say if older workers get $15 then younger should get $15.
I work for a non-profit as a payroll director. I don't support mandating the minimum wage across the board for a variety of reasons. I am in favor of certain basic living wages, and some form of graduated tier, based on age perhaps? Keeping it lower for under-18, cap it at 22-25 or something? Not sure how that would work exactly.
I live in NYC where the prices of everything are rocketing out of control. A slice of pizza used to cost $2, now its going up to $2.50. Metro cards are going up to $2.75-$3 soon.
Costs are going up and forcing everyone to pay that higher wage is just going to increase costs.
I do think there is a middle ground, and requiring companies with $X in net income/profit to pay $Y rate instead of $Z rate for companies making less, etc.
I live in NYC where the prices of everything are rocketing out of control. A slice of pizza used to cost $2, now its going up to $2.50. Metro cards are going up to $2.75-$3 soon.
Costs are going up and forcing everyone to pay that higher wage is just going to increase costs.
I do think there is a middle ground, and requiring companies with $X in net income/profit to pay $Y rate instead of $Z rate for companies making less, etc.
Yes. It's getting nearly impossible to support yourself on $10 or $12 an hour in many cities. The biggest hurdle is getting people who make $15 or $17 an hour to support it. Because they feel like people are "cheating" by catching up so easily.
The overriding issue is that wages have not kept pace with rising productivity. Worker productivity in the U.S. is as high as it has ever been, yet since the 1970s wages have remained flat.
A $15 minimum wage would still fall far below where productivity is today. In reality, if the minimum wage were pegged to worker productivity, as it had been in the 1940s-1960s, the U.S. minimum wage would be around $22 in 2017. Asking for a $15 minimum wage is really a compromise in favor of corporations.
A $15 minimum wage would still fall far below where productivity is today. In reality, if the minimum wage were pegged to worker productivity, as it had been in the 1940s-1960s, the U.S. minimum wage would be around $22 in 2017. Asking for a $15 minimum wage is really a compromise in favor of corporations.
The overriding issue is that wages have not kept pace with rising productivity. Worker productivity in the U.S. is as high as it has ever been, yet since the 1970s wages have remained flat.
A $15 minimum wage would still fall far below where productivity is today. In reality, if the minimum wage were pegged to worker productivity, as it had been in the 1940s-1960s, the U.S. minimum wage would be around $22 in 2017. Asking for a $15 minimum wage is really a compromise in favor of corporations.
Yup. This is where labor's declining share of income comes in. Individual workers are more productive than ever... but all the gains have been funneled to the top.
The executives should have to justify their pay increases and it's a shame, more than that it's downright perverse, if they don't. There should be binding shareholder approval on executive compensation.
Absolutely, the executives' compensation should be much more tied to the quality of their performance and outcomes.
Larger in what sense?
I don't know about a $15 flat minimum across the US. A livable wage in Knoxville, for example, is going to be a lot lower than in NYC or Los Angeles or Seattle. And in, say, a small town in west Texas probably lower still.
I think minimum wage should be raised to a livable wage, and that some sort of economic analysis should be done to find out what that would look like from... state to state? County to county? It'll be infinitely more complex but more equitable.
I think minimum wage should be raised to a livable wage, and that some sort of economic analysis should be done to find out what that would look like from... state to state? County to county? It'll be infinitely more complex but more equitable.
I believe it and I think it should also go up ever year with inflation. If not that the government should give everyone a living wage or enough money to combine with their salary to have a living wage plus benefits like health care and food stamps and other programs to help the poor.
Jason
Jason
It's easy really, they budget a certain amount for payroll, minimum goes up, workforce goes down.
The people retained work harder for the more money they're now receiving.
If a company spends more on wages that it planned, they don't neccesarily have to cut staff just accept a smaller profit margin. You could always raises prices slightly in order to offset some of the increased costs due to higher wages.
I also think it's amusing to assume workers can just "work harder". There has got to be a point where that isn't possible anymore or where "working harder" actually nets worse results because the workers are stressed and/or sick.
Raising the minimum wage also boosts economic activity. People making less than $15/hour are far more likely to re-circulate their wages in the local economy because they have in-elastic demands that must be met. Conversely, granting the top 1% a $150,000 tax break will NOT cause any of that money to be re-circulated in the local economy. It will most likely go sit in a bank account, or some sort of mutual fund.
Similar threads
