Perhaps part of the problem is a fixation on the specific number and lack of consideration for the material needs of the people. How much does it cost to live in your city? That’s the minimum wage. Is that $120/day? Is that $200/day? Is that $5000/day? That needs to be the wage floor.
Feel like you’re spending too much money on labor? See about reducing the cost of living, then we can talk.
Minimum wage means minimum livable wage, and “livable” isn’t the same as “survivable”.
Anyone working should be able to afford the amenities we call living, not just scraping by. Children, transportation, food, healthcare, reasonable recreation, savings, retirement, self development and actualization. All of it.
People not working should be able to survive, and we should do everything we can to get them to that “living” point as well. Disability or a bad labor market shouldn’t close someone off from eating, having children or going to the doctor.
Whether you think that ought to be the case is a separate matter, but as it is, it does not mean that, nor has it ever meant that (in the US at least), for as long as minimum wage existed.
Sure, you can find a quote or two from politicians back then saying otherwise, but as far as what actually passed as law, it’s never been. Obviously after adjusting for inflation, the highest the minimum wage has ever been is $12.34, in 1968, and that was fleeting.
Just mentioning since most people don’t seem to realize this is the case, and I’ve even seen a lot of people think the minimum wage was (relatively) much higher back in the post WWII years when things were very prosperous for the US. Fact is, in all those anecdotes about ‘He raised a family of four on a single income from this random job’, said job was paying WAY more than the minimum wage of the time.
Making the minimum wage $15 or more now is talked about like it brings things more in line with how they used to be, but in truth it would be an unprecedented new highest minimum wage ever (after adjusting for inflation, and yes, I do have to keep mentioning that, in my experience) even if we went ‘only’ to $15. Not saying that’s bad or good, but it’s important to be accurate about what is actually being proposed–if you’re advocating for this and someone asks you ‘why should it be raised to $15’, the answer should not involve talk about how we’re just trying to bring it back in alignment with where it used to be, relatively, because that’s simply not true.
I agree. I don’t see much point in raising the federal minimum wage beyond $15/hr until we make landlords extinct. As long as there are leeches who have free reign to charge whatever they want for a basic human necessity, any raises will just flow right into their already overstuffed pockets.
My previous comment did advocate for going all scorched earth on landlords, but I do see a space for them to exist in a heavily reduced capacity. And they’d actually have to work for a living. Apartment buildings would still exist, so individuals (NOT corporations) would be allowed to own a building of units and rent them out, with the stipulations that they personally live on site, they personally do the leasing and/or maintenance work themselves, and they pay themselves no greater income than 3x the median cost of the rent for their units. Any profit that isn’t refunded to their tenants or used to improve the property is taxed at 100% with zero deductions.
That way rental properties are still available, people can still make a living doing the actual work that goes into renting (leasing and maintenance), and there is no incentive or even ability for someone or a group of someones to use residential property to steal passive income.
Perhaps part of the problem is a fixation on the specific number and lack of consideration for the material needs of the people. How much does it cost to live in your city? That’s the minimum wage. Is that $120/day? Is that $200/day? Is that $5000/day? That needs to be the wage floor.
Feel like you’re spending too much money on labor? See about reducing the cost of living, then we can talk.
Minimum wage means minimum livable wage, and “livable” isn’t the same as “survivable”.
Anyone working should be able to afford the amenities we call living, not just scraping by. Children, transportation, food, healthcare, reasonable recreation, savings, retirement, self development and actualization. All of it.
People not working should be able to survive, and we should do everything we can to get them to that “living” point as well. Disability or a bad labor market shouldn’t close someone off from eating, having children or going to the doctor.
Whether you think that ought to be the case is a separate matter, but as it is, it does not mean that, nor has it ever meant that (in the US at least), for as long as minimum wage existed.
Sure, you can find a quote or two from politicians back then saying otherwise, but as far as what actually passed as law, it’s never been. Obviously after adjusting for inflation, the highest the minimum wage has ever been is $12.34, in 1968, and that was fleeting.
Just mentioning since most people don’t seem to realize this is the case, and I’ve even seen a lot of people think the minimum wage was (relatively) much higher back in the post WWII years when things were very prosperous for the US. Fact is, in all those anecdotes about ‘He raised a family of four on a single income from this random job’, said job was paying WAY more than the minimum wage of the time.
Making the minimum wage $15 or more now is talked about like it brings things more in line with how they used to be, but in truth it would be an unprecedented new highest minimum wage ever (after adjusting for inflation, and yes, I do have to keep mentioning that, in my experience) even if we went ‘only’ to $15. Not saying that’s bad or good, but it’s important to be accurate about what is actually being proposed–if you’re advocating for this and someone asks you ‘why should it be raised to $15’, the answer should not involve talk about how we’re just trying to bring it back in alignment with where it used to be, relatively, because that’s simply not true.
I agree. I don’t see much point in raising the federal minimum wage beyond $15/hr until we make landlords extinct. As long as there are leeches who have free reign to charge whatever they want for a basic human necessity, any raises will just flow right into their already overstuffed pockets.
Genuine question, what is one supposed to do if they need a place to live but can’t afford to buy an entire house, if not rent?
Seems like that ‘middle option’ needs to exist.
My previous comment did advocate for going all scorched earth on landlords, but I do see a space for them to exist in a heavily reduced capacity. And they’d actually have to work for a living. Apartment buildings would still exist, so individuals (NOT corporations) would be allowed to own a building of units and rent them out, with the stipulations that they personally live on site, they personally do the leasing and/or maintenance work themselves, and they pay themselves no greater income than 3x the median cost of the rent for their units. Any profit that isn’t refunded to their tenants or used to improve the property is taxed at 100% with zero deductions.
That way rental properties are still available, people can still make a living doing the actual work that goes into renting (leasing and maintenance), and there is no incentive or even ability for someone or a group of someones to use residential property to steal passive income.
Yeah, fixating a number is not the best, that was my point. We should have minimum dividand attached to an index.