Senate Republicans Kill Minimum Wage Bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
It would be close to the highest minimum wage has ever been, historically speaking. Here's a quick chart I put together:

CZjTg7U.png


I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with that, though.

a man landed on the moon when minimum wage was at its highest. a coincidence? i think not.
 
The good thing about Unions is that you don't need republicans, or democrats for that matter to have one. First amendment gives you the right to associate.

Ah, you have such faith that even if people got past fifty years of anti-union propaganda that a bunch of Red States wouldn't pass anti-union laws making it even more impossible to unionize that would be declared Constitutional in a bunch of 5-4 decisions.
 
Even if I ignored people's human right to volunteer their own time for however much money they goddamn please, and instead imposed my own personal standards on what their time is worth...why would I support a national minimum wage? States and municipalities already set their own minimum wages which at least would theoretically better reflect the purchasing power and cost of living in their specific area. This is an issue that even lefties should agree makes more sense to settle on a local basis rather than from a top-down perspective.
 
I agree with that but there is only so high you can take it before you cripple small business.

That's why I would rather see an expansion of the earned income tax credit (paid for by increasing taxes on the wealthiest) rather than increasing the minimum wage (although that should probably go up some, too). But lol, not happening I know. Not all small businesses can afford to pay a lot more to their employees, but the 1% can sure as crap pay more in taxes.
 
Even if I ignored people's human right to volunteer their own time for however much money they goddamn please, and instead imposed my own personal standards on what their time is worth...why would I support a national minimum wage? States and municipalities already set their own minimum wages which at least would theoretically better reflect the purchasing power and cost of living in their specific area. This is an issue that even lefties should agree makes more sense to settle on a local basis rather than from a top-down perspective.

I agree with that.
 
Even if I ignored people's human right to volunteer their own time for however much money they goddamn please, and instead imposed my own personal standards on what their time is worth...why would I support a national minimum wage? States and municipalities already set their own minimum wages which at least would theoretically better reflect the purchasing power and cost of living in their specific area. This is an issue that even lefties should agree makes more sense to settle on a local basis rather than from a top-down perspective.

Minimum wage, traditionally speaking, is not some arbitrary number pulled out of the sky. When done properly, it's a figure that is chosen based up how high it can be while having minimum negative impact on businesses. Doing this on a national level raises the purchasing power of the entire lower class, thus helping everybody in the entire nation in a short and long term.

Since we live in a market where laborers are setting the price of pay, not on what their competition is paying to keep their job attractive while being profitable but instead base what they pay on the shear minimum amount they can legally pay, many jobs are already paying much lower than they should from a true competitive market standpoint.

Example, Burger King and McDonald's are both profitable companies. In a truly competitive market, they'd have to raise their rate of pay in order to attract perspective employees, but not so high that hiring said employee costs more than their productivity creates in gross revenue. However, due to having multiple unemployed individuals out there, some actually very qualified to work at a job that is not fast food, they can pay as low as they want with zero disregard to profit margin considerations as people will still take said jobs because they need them.

Now, we know that a company is only going to hire the minimum amount of employees that it needs, because to do otherwise makes no business sense and causes a loss in profit. We also know that, due to the above labor market situation, that we have the minimum amount of employees hired at the bare market legal minimum rate hired. By raising the minimum wage a slight amount, first in consideration on inflation then after a flat amount, these companies will be minimally impacted.

Why? They cannot fire many people or cut back hours to save costs, as they've already done the numbers and are paying the minimum amount of hours necessary. Since they are already paying less than they can, as discussed earlier due to the labor market situation, raising the wage, while impacting profits will not damage the organization due to the fact they will still be, well, more than solvent. Prices of said goods shouldn't increase too much as, being in a free market, these locations are still competing with each other to offer a quality product at the maximum price allowed while still being low enough of a price to make the product a purchasable item to the consumer.

The reason why, federally, we'd want a minimum wage supported is the better my countrymen do in, say, Georgia and Texas then better I do here in Tennessee. The better my country does, as a whole, the better the individuals do within the nation.

Setting minimum wage locally just sets us up in a race for the bottom, which we're already in and raising it is already not going to have a huge impact.
 
Even if I ignored people's human right to volunteer their own time for however much money they goddamn please, and instead imposed my own personal standards on what their time is worth...why would I support a national minimum wage? States and municipalities already set their own minimum wages which at least would theoretically better reflect the purchasing power and cost of living in their specific area. This is an issue that even lefties should agree makes more sense to settle on a local basis rather than from a top-down perspective.
This is definitely a good argument as to why "aiming low" on the national wage is a positive idea - that high variance in cost of living is real.
 
You can get the wage to a point where it's actively preventing more than a fraction of a % of people from receiving employment. We're clearly not at that point right now, though, and it's unlikely that the proposed changes would get us dangerously close to that point.

Should have been born a trust fund baby. Means you weren't working hard enough.

You made your bed.
 
This is definitely a good argument as to why "aiming low" on the national wage is a positive idea - that high variance in cost of living is real.

No matter where you live, seven bucks an hour or lower isn't enough to live on and believe me, in states like Alabama or Texas, the minimum wage would be lower than that, because ya know, freedom.

It's almost like that people don't know how life was in large swathes of the country before the federal government stepped in and said, "stop being assholes to your own people."
 
Even if I ignored people's human right to volunteer their own time for however much money they goddamn please, and instead imposed my own personal standards on what their time is worth...why would I support a national minimum wage? States and municipalities already set their own minimum wages which at least would theoretically better reflect the purchasing power and cost of living in their specific area. This is an issue that even lefties should agree makes more sense to settle on a local basis rather than from a top-down perspective.

Maybe because you're sick of subsidizing corporate wages via your tax dollars through welfare and food stamps?
 
What point is that? Should we use base wages from other developed nations as a comparison?

To be clear, I'm not advocating an increase to 15 an hour at once. I'm just saying a 25% increase from "not close to being enough" raises it to "not enough".

What point is that? I think it's self-explanatory. You raise it to 15 dollars even over a short period of time and there will be repercussions. Some small business run on very thin razor margins. Now if you want to make an argument that they should be sacrificed for the greater good, fine, but $15/hour would be highest min wage ever accounting for inflation. It's going to hurt and close some businesses.
 
Can't say I'm bummed. Some inflation would occur and I'm sure I wouldn't get a raise which would result in my purchasing power decreasing.
 
No matter where you live, seven bucks an hour or lower isn't enough to live on and believe me, in states like Alabama or Texas, the minimum wage would be lower than that, because ya know, freedom.

It's almost like that people don't know how life was in large swathes of the country before the federal government stepped in and said, "stop being assholes to your own people."
By *Low* I mean you need to look at where cost of living is the lowest and set it there (and index to inflation) to avoid massive problems - not a Metro area like DC. I know from experience that going from NoVa to the outer suburbs resulted in a pretty significant pay drop for people (about 10-15%) when I was at a big box retailer, as they took cost of living into account when making salary offers.

Under 7 bucks is clearly ridiculously low in any place, given that it's going to be what, $500 per paycheck in terms of real take-home value?
 
So many issues in politics really dead-end at "But how will it affect this rich guy's bottom line?", don't they? But instead of poor people getting angry, they've been brainwashed into defending these people in the name of patriotism. Awesome.
 
Can't say I'm bummed. Some inflation would occur and I'm sure I wouldn't get a raise which would result in my purchasing power decreasing.

Probably not. We do not live in a country where wages are actually determined based up what a person's true worth is per hour based upon both profit and the person's ability to find work elsewhere. Some inflation may occur, but more people's purchasing power would rise and all the businesses who did not raise their prices would reap the benefits. Therefor, you would probably not have any impact for a hot minute.

Although, you may end up paying $.10 for a cup of coffee.
 
Raising the minimum wage wouldn't necessarily cause inflation, especially if the American economy is running at less the full employment today.
 
Even if I ignored people's human right to volunteer their own time for however much money they goddamn please, and instead imposed my own personal standards on what their time is worth...why would I support a national minimum wage? States and municipalities already set their own minimum wages which at least would theoretically better reflect the purchasing power and cost of living in their specific area. This is an issue that even lefties should agree makes more sense to settle on a local basis rather than from a top-down perspective.

This implies that states will act responsibly when it comes to setting a wage, which we can see obviously isn't true.

Alabama for example, is on of five states that has no minimum wage. So if it wasn't for the federal wage they could be paid pennies and it would be legal.

Then there are four other states that have a minimum wage set lower than the federal level.

If it wasn't for the federal minimum wage many of these people wouldn't even be able to afford the gas needed to get to work, let alone the food needed to survive. Forty hours a week at the federal minimum wage will net you just over $1000 a month. That's barely enough to afford rent in many cities, let alone keep yourself fed.
 
Is there some magical way people can come up with a law that, instead of minimum wage, caps profits vs wage, so we don't have companies paying minimum wage while simultaneously having record profits?

Like... I dunno, tying in wage/cost of living/inflation, so if they raise prices, they have to raise wages too?
 
Now, we know that a company is only going to hire the minimum amount of employees that it needs, because to do otherwise makes no business sense and causes a loss in profit. We also know that, due to the above labor market situation, that we have the minimum amount of employees hired at the bare market legal minimum rate hired. By raising the minimum wage a slight amount, first in consideration on inflation then after a flat amount, these companies will be minimally impacted.

Why? They cannot fire many people or cut back hours to save costs, as they've already done the numbers and are paying the minimum amount of hours necessary. Since they are already paying less than they can, as discussed earlier due to the labor market situation, raising the wage, while impacting profits will not damage the organization due to the fact they will still be, well, more than solvent. Prices of said goods shouldn't increase too much as, being in a free market, these locations are still competing with each other to offer a quality product at the maximum price allowed while still being low enough of a price to make the product a purchasable item to the consumer.
This is not even nearly true. Companies layoff employees all the time, often with a corresponding bump in stock prices. These companies don't cease to function either. Granted, these companies are often laying off people that are well above the minimum wage, but to act like no company can possibly function without fewer employees is obscenely naive.
 
My dad is against increasing the minimum wage. He thinks there would be a bigger impact on prices than on wages since all these companies at every level would have to pay more.

I couldn't really convince him it wouldn't work like that because I don't know enough about it. I'm aware that any price increases should be basically negligible, just didn't know how to explain that to him.
 
Has this always been the case?

In theory, it's "always" been the case, but it's only been really used on every single bill in the past few years. In all of recent political history, filibusters were only used on civil rights issues and very hot button issues one or twice a year.

Before, almost everybody would vote to close "debate" on an issue, then you'd go to the regular vote, where 50 votes + the VP wins. However, thanks to conservative groups dinging Senator's for voting for even closing debate, even previously semi-sane Republican Senator's have started to vote against everything.

filibuster-reform-chart.jpg
 
This is not even nearly true. Companies layoff employees all the time, often with a corresponding bump in stock prices. These companies don't cease to function either. Granted, these companies are often laying off people that are well above the minimum wage, but to act like no company can possibly function without fewer employees is obscenely naive.

Yes, it's not nearly true. To be clear, I'm not talking about every employee at every company.

I'm talking about current companies staff in regards to minimum wage labor in a company that is already staffed at it's optimal number of employees. Somebody getting fired because WalMart replaced their job with a self checkout is not the same category as somebody getting fired because their company cannot afford to pay them minimum wage anymore. Same with outsourcing to India or what have you.

Granted, some people will lose this job. But to think unemployment would skyrocket if minimum wage was gradually increased is just not true. The guy making fries and Wendy's is gonna be okay if he gets a pay bump.
 
So that didn't work, but they'll explore other ways to increase incomes at the bottom of the scale right? Wage subsidies, employment subsidies, guaranteed income schemes? Oh, those don't focus test as well? Nevermind...

I don't understand this sentiment one bit.

What's not to understand?
 
Now, we know that a company is only going to hire the minimum amount of employees that it needs, because to do otherwise makes no business sense and causes a loss in profit. We also know that, due to the above labor market situation, that we have the minimum amount of employees hired at the bare market legal minimum rate hired. By raising the minimum wage a slight amount, first in consideration on inflation then after a flat amount, these companies will be minimally impacted.

This is the fundamental premise of your argument, and it's not correct. Number of employees isn't even a financial number, so I don't even think managers or owners would bother looking at it. What matters is how much is being spent on labor.
 
For the moment, I'm rather aligned with the Republican viewpoint, but I'm trying not to be since it's not the popular thing here and I like to think you all are clever.

As I see it:
- Lower/no minimum wage means businesses start paying less, or what they think the job is actually worth
- Fewer people can afford to take the lower-paying job, so fewer people do
- Enough less people take the job that the employer has to start raising wages to give future employees incentive
- Rinse, repeat, and eventually the wage balances out to the mean of what it's worth to the employer and employee

It's basic supply and demand as far as I see. What (probably obvious) thing am I missing?
 
What's not to understand?

Eh, I think I'm misreading it.

Although as we've seen already, paying people based on 'perceived' worth can bring wages under current minimum wage standards in efforts to maximize profits. Some businesses paying minimum wage probably wish they could pay less but the law prevents them from doing so.
 
For the moment, I'm rather aligned with the Republican viewpoint, but I'm trying not to be since it's not the popular thing here and I like to think you all are clever.

As I see it:
- Lower/no minimum wage means businesses start paying less, or what they think the job is actually worth
- Fewer people can afford to take the lower-paying job, so fewer people do
- Enough less people take the job that the employer has to start raising wages to give future employees incentive
- Rinse, repeat, and eventually the wage balances out to the mean of what it's worth to the employer and employee

It's basic supply and demand as far as I see. What (probably obvious) thing am I missing?
Reality.

That's not how things work. Instead of not taking the job, people take two or three to make ends meet, since minimum wage affect mainly unskilled workers who can't get better jobs.
 
Let's say the minimum wage is increased to $15.00 an hour. Is the thought that by raising the wage of unskilled labor jobs it will somehow correlate to an increase in all other jobs as well? A fairly common entry level position for a college graduate pays about 35k. That's $16.80 an hour. $1.80 an hour more than someone working at McDonlands.
 
For the moment, I'm rather aligned with the Republican viewpoint, but I'm trying not to be since it's not the popular thing here and I like to think you all are clever.

As I see it:
- Lower/no minimum wage means businesses start paying less, or what they think the job is actually worth
- Fewer people can afford to take the lower-paying job, so fewer people do
- Enough less people take the job that the employer has to start raising wages to give future employees incentive
- Rinse, repeat, and eventually the wage balances out to the mean of what it's worth to the employer and employee

It's basic supply and demand as far as I see. What (probably obvious) thing am I missing?

People can always afford to take a lower-paying job if the alternative is being broke. This allows businesses to pay far lower than what the job is worth.
 
Reality.

That's not how things work. Instead of not taking the job, people take two or three to make ends meet, since minimum wage affect mainly unskilled workers who can't get better jobs.

So if I don't get full from a single McGriddle, should they increase their portions to meet my needs? I'll probably just order two or three McGriddles instead.

It sounds like the main point of contention is disagreement over whether a well-paying job is basic human right or not.
 
This is the fundamental premise of your argument, and it's not correct. Number of employees isn't even a financial number, so I don't even think managers or owners would bother looking at it. What matters is how much is being spent on labor.

Not just what is being spent on labor but how much can be spent of labor while still keeping a profit.

If I only need 10 people to make my sandwiches at my sandwich shop, due to customer demand, I'm only going to hire 10 people. There's no need to hire more. If demand increases to the point I need 11, I'd be stupid to not hire 11 as I'm missing out on potential profit.

If I can pay those ten people 15 dollars an hour to make the sandwiches and since I make some bomb ass sandwiches that rate of pay still turns a profit, than that is the max I would pay them. If, I hire another person at 15, if the demand is high enough to warrant said employee, then my profit would just increase because my laborer would be producing more of a product that my consumers want.

But, if I'm the only place hiring in an area, and I have a hundred applicants, and they're all going to work for 7.25 an hour, I have zero reason to pay higher than 7.25. Forcing me to pay ten or 15 will still have no impact, because that amount is the max I could pay and still turn a profit. I'm still only going to hire 10 people, since that's all I'll need.

Granted, these are numbers from ass, but the principle is the same, ass or no, and those that determine minimum wage do not pull numbers from their asses, that look at long term impacts. Some inflation could occur, but the vast majority of studies out there say an increase in the minimum wage would be a net positive.
 
I love how the sentiment is that businesses should take care of the poor. It's not the businesses responsibility. It's the government's job. Slash the defense budget and funnel money into helping the poor.
 
For the moment, I'm rather aligned with the Republican viewpoint, but I'm trying not to be since it's not the popular thing here and I like to think you all are clever.

As I see it:
- Lower/no minimum wage means businesses start paying less, or what they think the job is actually worth
- Fewer people can afford to take the lower-paying job, so fewer people do
- Enough less people take the job that the employer has to start raising wages to give future employees incentive
- Rinse, repeat, and eventually the wage balances out to the mean of what it's worth to the employer and employee

It's basic supply and demand as far as I see. What (probably obvious) thing am I missing?

Because people have bills to pay and need to eat. So they'll take those shit jobs so they won't die.

It sounds fine in a vacuum but once we take it out of there and expose it to reality it falls apart.
 
My dad is against increasing the minimum wage. He thinks there would be a bigger impact on prices than on wages since all these companies at every level would have to pay more.

I couldn't really convince him it wouldn't work like that because I don't know enough about it. I'm aware that any price increases should be basically negligible, just didn't know how to explain that to him.

Ask him why the value menu exists across state borders where minimum wage laws differ. Prices are not a 1:1 relationship with wages.
 
So many issues in politics really dead-end at "But how will it affect this rich guy's bottom line?", don't they? But instead of poor people getting angry, they've been brainwashed into defending these people in the name of patriotism. Awesome.

They defend those who are willing to toss them into a ditch. The power of conditioning.
 
So if I don't get full from a single McGriddle, should they increase their portions to meet my needs? I'll probably just order two or three McGriddles instead.

It sounds like the main point of contention is disagreement over whether a well-paying job is basic human right or not.

Saying "well-paying" is a huge exaggeration in this case; the current minimum-wage is borderline unlivable. Which leads in to your last point: We have already agreed that being paid enough to live is a human right, which is why welfare exists. The problem is that right now the cost is being shifted to the taxpayers instead of the actual employers like it should.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom