Biden wants a $15 hourly federal minimum wage. Is America ready?

[DJ Paul's Arm]

This. A restaurant probably paying their busboys and waiters minimum wage now. You up that to $15, the restaurant either raise prices of their food to cover the cost or they eliminate some employees to manage the cost. Multiply that across the country and you’re losing millions of jobs.

They were discussing this on CNN earlier. An economist on their panel said it will do the opposite. Robert Reich said more money in people's pockets = more spending = more sales = job creation/ employers able to afford payroll but shouldn't be implemented now. When things get back to normal, that's when discussions should happen.

 

[Atlrocafella]

Corporations are one thing, but what’s the plan for small businesses? What relief do they get for having to double their employee’s salary?

No one ever has an answer for this. Always focused on corporations.

 

[mastermind]

Corporations are one thing, but what’s the plan for small businesses? What relief do they get for having to double their employee’s salary?

No one ever has an answer for this. Always focused on corporations.

That’s why it’s phased in over three years.

If these businesses can’t adjust then they were never going to make it.

These are very bad faith arguments against it. (And it isn’t small businesses that make this “let’s defend small businesses argument. It’s big corporations)

 

[invincible1914]

No one ever has an answer for this. Always focused on corporations.

I really believe this $15 minimum wage is a pump fake. They said it to get votes, but this is one of those elections where you’re not getting away with false promises. And you got dudes like Bernie pointing fingers.

 

[mastermind]

I really believe this $15 minimum wage this is a pump fake. They said it to get votes, but this is one of those elections where you’re not getting away with false promises. And you got dudes like Bernie pointing fingers.

This sounded good in your head before you wrote it.

 

[gho3st]

right? like businesses and landlords aren't gonna raise prices to collect get their share off that minimum wage rise

Scenario 1: bottle of water costs 1$ at the corner spot. you were making 8 hr so you think with the 15$ minimum wage rise, that bottle of water is not gonna fck up your budget as bad as it usually does. So put your cheese face on and go to the store and when you get ready to pay for the water....Store clerk looks at you dead in the face: "bottle of water is 2.50$ now "

 

[Wild self]

right? like businesses and landlords aren't gonna raise prices to collect get their share off that minimum wage rise

Scenario 1: bottle of water costs 1$ at the corner spot. you were making 8 hr so you think with the 15$ minimum wage rise, that bottle of water is not gonna fck up your budget as bad as it usually does. So put your cheese face on and go to the store and when you get ready to pay for the water....Store clerk looks at you dead in the face: "bottle of water is 2.50$ now "

They need to be another Bill to put price caps on food and rent

 

[Jay Kast]

If a business cannot stay afloat after a minimum wage hike to 15$, that business no longer deserves to be in business.

What do we say if someone says, "I want to start a business but I wont be able to pay my employees the minimum wage required to be in business."?

Sounds like you need a better business plan .

The point of minimum wage is to for an average full time worker to be able to afford the necessities for living (food, shelter, clothing).

The cost of living changes as time goes on.
It stands to reason that the federal minimum wage should, too.

@DEAD7 , can you please explain why we should cater to or hitch the federal minimum wage argument onto the wagon of 'Barely profitable and/or poorly ran businesses' as if new businesses are incapable of being created.

In the wake of these barely profitable or poorly ran businesses, new businesses will emerge w/ better plans and more profitable modes of operation. Why are we depending on the bottom caste of wage earners to keep these struggling businesses afloat?

Also... why is it that the argument always leans towards 'money is being siphoned out' and less towards 'there will be an equilibrium"? There has never been an incident where wage was raised by a reasonable amount and massive business failures or job losses occurred (if so, please let me know - I'm genuinely interested in learning). If more people are earning more money, does it not stand to reason that people will spend more money?

Also if we continue at the rate we're at, aren't we simply subsidizing the poor through taxes for programs such as WIC/SNAP/SECTION 8, etc?

Either way, the deficit that some people have below the poverty line is made up in some form or fashion. Through social welfare programs, charity, crime, etc - we as a society pick up that bill collectively.

There is absolutely NO way to avoid that cost - other than providing the opportunity for American citizens to earn that through a federal minimum wage aimed at giving a fulltime working the ability to afford the necessities of living.

 

[DEAD7]

If a business cannot stay afloat after a minimum wage hike to 15$, that business no longer deserves to be in business.

What do we say if someone says, "I want to start a business but I wont be able to pay my employees the minimum wage required to be in business."?

Sounds like you need a better business plan

The point of minimum wage is to for an average full time worker to be able to afford the necessities for living (food, shelter, clothing).

The cost of living changes as time goes on.
It stands to reason that the federal minimum wage should, too.

@DEAD7 , can you please explain why we should cater to or hitch the federal minimum wage argument onto the wagon of 'Barely profitable and/or poorly ran businesses' as if new businesses are incapable of being created.

In the wake of these barely profitable or poorly ran businesses, new businesses will emerge w/ better plans and more profitable modes of operation. Why are we depending on the bottom caste of wage earners to keep these struggling businesses afloat?

Also... why is it that the argument always leans towards 'money is being siphoned out' and less towards 'there will be an equilibrium"? There has never been an incident where wage was raised by a reasonable amount and massive business failures or job losses occurred (if so, please let me know - I'm genuinely interested in learning). If more people are earning more money, does it not stand to reason that people will spend more money?

Also if we continue at the rate we're at, aren't we simply subsidizing the poor through taxes for programs such as WIC/SNAP/SECTION 8, etc?

Either way, the deficit that some people have below the poverty line is made up in some form or fashion. Through social welfare programs, charity, crime, etc - we as a society pick up that bill collectively.

There is absolutely NO way to avoid that cost - other than providing the opportunity for American citizens to earn that through a federal minimum wage aimed at giving a fulltime working the ability to afford the necessities of living.

You(and others) are purposely painting with a broad brush...The average Fair Market Rent for a 2-bedroom home in Ohio is $742 per month. Min wage(which the majority of workers make more than) is $1,360 per month. Compare that to any coastal state you want and you will see why one shoe simply doesn't fit all.
What you are saying is, if the business plan those mom an pop establishments developed cant meet coastal standards they don't deserve to be in business. I disagree wholeheartedly, and maintain that min wage should reflect the local economy as determined by those within that local economy. Not far removed third parties.

If a business cannot stay afloat after a minimum wage hike to 15$, that business no longer deserves to be in business.

One of the most pro corporate elite mindsets there is.
The harder you make it on the little guy the better it is got the big guy...

Small local shop: we gotta let people go, cut back hours, or close.
Starbucks: we will just raise prices or eat the loss.



My suggestion is to tax the top appropriately and redistribute the wealth effectively.
Leave the little guys alone.

 

[Insensitive]

right? like businesses and landlords aren't gonna raise prices to collect get their share off that minimum wage rise

Scenario 1: bottle of water costs 1$ at the corner spot. you were making 8 hr so you think with the 15$ minimum wage rise, that bottle of water is not gonna fck up your budget as bad as it usually does. So put your cheese face on and go to the store and when you get ready to pay for the water....Store clerk looks at you dead in the face: "bottle of water is 2.50$ now "

At that point we'd have to institute a maximum rent program.
Maybe something based around earnings in the area ? Some way to suppress the desire t
maximize rent and price out lower income tenants ?
Wouldn't make sense for someone's pay to double over night due to a new country wide law
and their rent immediately scales with it. That'd eliminate anyway to potentially start growing wealth.

 

[Jay Kast]

You(and others) are purposely painting with a broad brush...The average Fair Market Rent for a 2-bedroom home in Ohio is $742 per month. Min wage(which the majority of workers make more than) is $1,360 per month. Compare that to any coastal state you want and you will see why one shoe simply doesn't fit all.
What you are saying is, if the business plan those mom an pop establishments developed cant meet coastal standards they don't deserve to be in business. I disagree wholeheartedly, and maintain that min wage should reflect the local economy as determined by those within that local economy. Not far removed third parties.

Ohio, being one of the cheapest states to rent housing in, would still be prohibitively expensive for those earning minimum wage.

Housing per month 742 (x12 months = 8904), monthly income 1360 (x12 months = 16320).

16320-8904=7416.

$7416 for everything else. Utilities, gas, food, daycare (if applicable), clothes, etc.

$7416÷12=$618 a month. You ain't making it without assistance, period.

Also, these the disparities in localities and economics will equalize more and more as mass transportation and affordable self driving cars become more ubiquitous (though that's a whole other conversation).

I respect your opinion, though I disagree with it. What I find is that businesses through design (of capitalism) seek the lowest wage to pay - not what is deserved. I live in Flint, MI and have seen this played out from the days of glory to rock bottom to the build-back process (which we're in now). Many companies INTENTIONALLY set up shop in poverty stricken areas to acquire CHEAP labor to increase profits. Mom and Pop stores, family owned businesses and corporations do it, too.

Somehow, you drive 15-30 minutes away and all of a sudden, wages are decent again . A large part of regional differences in costs of living have been mitigated by our postal/shipping network and transportation services yet are still artificially perpetuated (to an extent).

Yet, I am supposed to feel bad for these businesses that most, in essence, operate as leeches as far as the law will let them?



One of the most pro corporate elite mindsets there is.
The harder you make it on the little guy the better it is got the big guy...

Small local shop: we gotta let people go, cut back hours, or close.
Starbucks: we will just raise prices or eat the loss.



My suggestion is to tax the top appropriately and redistribute the wealth effectively.
Leave the little guys alone.

Pro corporate is the last thing I am. There are many fixes to be made but we're only speaking on raising the minimum wage to $15, which is long overdue.

Truth is, giving the little guy more money stimulates the economy more than tax breaks for the rich and/or corporations ever will.

There are other fixes to be made as well, I understand you are for less regulation but as I've seen - when left up to the moral goodness of the average human, you will see a stunning lack of humanity when the system (capitalism) is designed to put profits over people.

 

[DEAD7]

Pro corporate is the last thing I am. There are many fixes to be made but we're only speaking on raising the minimum wage to $15, which is long overdue.

Truth is, giving the little guy more money stimulates the economy more than tax breaks for the rich and/or corporations ever will.

Fair enough... but I still haven't heard a compelling argument as to why it shouldn't be a states issue.
I'm not opposed to $15/min wage, I just think states should implement it on their own, taking into consideration all the factors unique to their economy. Somewhere like Ohio or Arkansas may need a longer phase in process than say Colorado or Florida.

The decision should be made as close to the people affected as possible imo which I understand runs against much of the progressive agenda.

 

[DEAD7]

At that point we'd have to institute a maximum rent program.

What does economic evidence tell us about the effects of rent control?

DMQ find that rent-controlled buildings were 8 percentage points more likely to convert to a condo than buildings in the control group. Consistent with these findings, they find that rent control led to a 15 percentage point decline in the number of renters living in treated buildings and a 25 percentage point reduction in the number of renters living in rent-controlled units, relative to 1994 levels. This large reduction in rental housing supply was driven by converting existing structures to owner-occupied condominium housing and by replacing existing structures with new construction.

This 15 percentage point reduction in the rental supply of small multi-family housing likely led to rent increases in the long-run, consistent with standard economic theory. In this sense, rent control operated as a transfer between the future renters of San Francisco (who would pay these higher rents due to lower supply) to the renters living in San Francisco in 1994 (who benefited directly from lower rents). Furthermore, since many of the existing rental properties were converted to higher-end, owner-occupied condominium housing and new construction rentals, the passage of rent control ultimately led to a housing stock that caters to higher income individuals. DMQ find that this high-end housing, developed in response to rent control, attracted residents with at least 18 percent higher income. Taking all of these points together, it appears rent control has actually contributed to the gentrification of San Francisco, the exact opposite of the policy’s intended goal. Indeed, by simultaneously bringing in higher income residents and preventing displacement of minorities, rent control has contributed to widening income inequality of the city.

 

[Insensitive]

What does economic evidence tell us about the effects of rent control?

DMQ find that rent-controlled buildings were 8 percentage points more likely to convert to a condo than buildings in the control group. Consistent with these findings, they find that rent control led to a 15 percentage point decline in the number of renters living in treated buildings and a 25 percentage point reduction in the number of renters living in rent-controlled units, relative to 1994 levels. This large reduction in rental housing supply was driven by converting existing structures to owner-occupied condominium housing and by replacing existing structures with new construction.

This 15 percentage point reduction in the rental supply of small multi-family housing likely led to rent increases in the long-run, consistent with standard economic theory. In this sense, rent control operated as a transfer between the future renters of San Francisco (who would pay these higher rents due to lower supply) to the renters living in San Francisco in 1994 (who benefited directly from lower rents). Furthermore, since many of the existing rental properties were converted to higher-end, owner-occupied condominium housing and new construction rentals, the passage of rent control ultimately led to a housing stock that caters to higher income individuals. DMQ find that this high-end housing, developed in response to rent control, attracted residents with at least 18 percent higher income. Taking all of these points together, it appears rent control has actually contributed to the gentrification of San Francisco, the exact opposite of the policy’s intended goal. Indeed, by simultaneously bringing in higher income residents and preventing displacement of minorities, rent control has contributed to widening income inequality of the city.

Well if this is the result of the social experiment in controlling rent, then presumably politicians would write in a pre-emptive measure to combat spiraling housing costs.

I'm certain we could figure out a way to prevent extremely high income earners from displacing everyone else and making home ownership or really ownership
of any kind an impossibility.

 

[DEAD7]

Well if this is the result of the social experiment in controlling rent, then presumably politicians would write in a pre-emptive measure to combat spiraling housing costs.

I'm certain we could figure out a way to prevent extremely high income earners from displacing everyone else and making home ownership or really ownership
of any kind an impossibility.

Dems havent been able to in CA