Minimum wage rates do not determine wage differentials.

[Supposn]

I don't think you want that. If the minimum wage had been increased with inflation when it first began in 1938 it would be $4.53 today.

Flash, I don’t believe we “know” the minimum rate’s optimum purchasing power. The purchasing power of the federal minimum wage rate’s purchasing power “peaked” at $1.60 per hour in February – 1968, but our economy could have more benefitted if the minimum’s purchasing power had been further increased.
I do not “know” if we could increase the minimum’s purchasing power to an extent that would be economically detrimental, but 125% of the February – 1968 peak would not be testing that possibility.
Respectfully, Supposn
///////
Initial post of the thread, H.R. 582, “Raise the wage act”:

H.R. 582, “Raise the wage act” is a good bill, but opponents of the bill will refrain from mentioning the minimum hourly rate will not be $15 until 7th year after the bill's passage.
In the likely case that it's not passed through and added to our federal statutes, I urge U.S. Congressional members to continue striving and pass a bill that would increase the minimum wage rate by 12.5% of its purchasing power until it attains 125% of its February-1968 purchasing power. Thereafter the rate should be monitored and annually adjusted to retain that purchasing power. …

///////
Referring to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistic’s consumer price index calculator,
(https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1.60&year1=196802&year2=201912 ), the federal minimum wage rate of $1.60 in February–1968, has purchasing power equal to $12.02 in December-2019; 125% of $12.02 is a half cent greater than $15.

 

[Supposn]

A minimum should't exist at all. If someone's skills are worth $2/hour, they should be paid $2/hour not $7.25/hour.

CFM, it's economically preferable that we have a minimum wage rate of substantially greater purchasing power, rather than permit it to be reduced. Respectfully, Supposn

Truth Detector, to the extent of its purchasing power, the federal minimum wage rate has a greater effect upon lower, and a lesser effect upon higher wage rates. Its effect upon the lowest earning 40 percentile of USA’s employees range from critical to substantial portion of their wage rates.
Thus, to the extent of its purchasing power, the federal minimum wage rate reduces poverty among lower wage rate employees and their dependents, which is a positive contribution to our nation’s economy. …

 

[Flash]

Flash, I don’t believe we “know” the minimum rate’s optimum purchasing power. The purchasing power of the federal minimum wage rate’s purchasing power “peaked” at $1.60 per hour in February – 1968, but our economy could have more benefitted if the minimum’s purchasing power had been further increased.
I do not “know” if we could increase the minimum’s purchasing power to an extent that would be economically detrimental, but 125% of the February – 1968 peak would not be testing that possibility.
Respectfully, Supposn
///////
Initial post of the thread, H.R. 582, “Raise the wage act”: ///////
Referring to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistic’s consumer price index calculator,
(https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1.60&year1=196802&year2=201912 ), the federal minimum wage rate of $1.60 in February–1968, has purchasing power equal to $12.02 in December-2019; 125% of $12.02 is a half cent greater than $15.

Then you have not actually indexed the minimum wage to inflation. If you did it from the origin 1938 then it would be $4.53. Letting Congress raise it we are now at $7.25 which is almost twice what it would be if it had been indexed.

Instead, you cherry-picked the date to 1968 when it was at the peak-that is not indexing it to inflation when you choose a year when it was highest. But indexing it from that year you only get $11.75 today.

Then, you want to add 25% to that which destroys the indexing concept.

Still, my point was that your original claim that if we indexed it to inflation it would be over $15 today is not correct whether we indexed it to 1938 or 1968.

If you want to raise the minimum wage to $15 that is what you should be advocating. Just forget the indexing thing because it would not accomplish that goal.

 

[Walt]

I just googled Wyoming and it said $7.25 which is the same as the federal.

This might be a bit complex, but you are both sort of right. Wyoming has a lower minimum wage than the federal minimum wage, but almost all jobs in Wyoming are covered under the federal laws, so are required to pay federal minimum wage. If you violate the federal minimum wage laws, you committed no Wyoming crime, but you have committed a federal crime... Well it would be more common for it to be a violation rather than a crime, but you get the point.

 

[Walt]

If a State doesn't have one, the default is the federal min wage

If a state does not have a minimum wage, or the state minimum wage is lower than the federal minimum wage, then the federal minimum wage still applies... But only for the jobs it applies for. Almost all jobs are considered to be part of interstate commerce, and so federal minimum wage applies to almost all.

 

[Walt]

No it does not. Wyoming has min wage of $7.25, the same as the Fed rate.

You are technically wrong. Employers in Wyoming almost always have to pay federal minimum wage, but that is not because of Wyoming laws. Wyoming laws allow for a much lower minimum wage.

So lets say you pay $6 an hour. You will get in trouble with the federal law, but will be fine under Wyoming law.

The only ones that can make a 'wage' under the Fed minimum are those that work for tips. Tips that average out to more than the $7.25 per hour.

Federal minimum wage allows for tips to be used to make up for some on the wage. It can get cruel when people are paid $2.13 an hour, with the promise that tips will bring them up to $7.25. If tips do not, they still have to pay taxes as if the tips did. There are people who have actually ended up losing money for working.

 

[Walt]

I don't think you want that. If the minimum wage had been increased with inflation when it first began in 1938 it would be $4.53 today.

If you automatically increase it with inflation, and then increase it even more with increased productivity/per capita income... Then you get something more similar to $15. Another possible peg is to average income. There are many way not to pay people like it is 1938.

 

[Supposn]

Key take away; NO ONE in this country is forced to work for less than they think they are worth.

Truth Detector, key take away; no USA employer is forced to pay an employee more than they believe is appropriate; they may pay no less than the minimum or they may manage with less employees.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

That is a pile of bullshit. There is no credible evidence out there that arbitrary minimum wage rates do ANYTHING other than interfere with markets.

Example; The current arbitrary Federal minimum wage rate is $7.25 per hour. That amount is a poverty rate in San Francisco. …

Truth Detector, you think that’s why since 2003, San Francisco’s minimum wage rate has been higher than the federal minimum? On July of 2019, it was increased from $15 to $15.59 per hour. It will thereafter be annually adjusted to retain its proportional ratio to a U.S. consumer price index. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

That is a pile of bullshit. … In addition, arbitrarily raising rates also merely creates inflationary pressures on small businesses. That means that any perceived benefit is soon lost when the cost of goods and services go up. …

Truth Detector, the minimum wage rate is not among the primary drivers of inflation:

There are comparatively few goods or service prices or costs that are entirely attributable to the prices of labor and the minimum wage rate does not affect all wage rates equally.
The minimum rate’s proportional effect upon a product’s price is dependent upon the proportion of the price that’s attributable to direct or indirect labor, and the proportional differences between those labor costs that are attributable to higher or lower wage rates.

That’s why the minimum wage rate has never been among the primary drivers of U.S. dollar’s inflation. Inflation occurs even when the minimum wage rate has not been increased.
///////
Many states and local governments have enacted minimum wage rates greater than the federal minimum. Some of those jurisdictions differentiate between the rate applicable enterprises with lesser or greater numbers of employees. Other jurisdictions share the federal law's view that a standard minimum is not of greater hardship upon smaller enterprises, and their employees should equally benefit from the laws.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

That is a pile of bullshit. … They, [lower wage rates or just precisely $7.25 per hour rates?] are not earned by the bread winners in a household. Most are part time jobs. …

Truth Detector, minimum Wage rate’s affects upon the 40 percentiles of U.S. employees earning the lowest wage rates, range from critical to substantial. But I don’t doubt that within those lowest earning 40 percent of USA’s entire workforce, there are many dependent children from families of sufficient incomes.

There are also many adults within that population segment. Among that 40 percent there are parents, grandparents, employees fully, or substantially supporting themselves, and some who are also fully or substantially supporting other dependents. There’s a great number of single parent heads of households within that group. Some of those in the group are students dependent upon their incomes so they can remain in school.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

That is a pile of bullshit. … Lastly, the primary reason anyone is earning at that low rate is due to education, language barriers and lack of job skills, IE students.
… The best way to get a higher paying job is through education or learning a skill that is in demand. NOT by waiting for GOVERNMENT politicians to do something for you.

Truth Detector, any improvement of our nation’s educational and training systems would be reflected by no lesser improvement of our economy. We agree that education and training is the most likely key to individual’s financial and nation’s economic advancement.

USA spend enough, but many nations that spend less than us for education, are achieving superior results. We have 50 states’ departments of education and many non-government schools. The U.S. Department of Defense was, and I suppose still is operating the largest educational and training programs the world. But we still haven’t come up with the answers.
But how’s that related to the minimum wage rate?

There will always be people of lesser capabilities or other less desirable attributes. The minimum wage rate is the rate applicable to the least desirable applicants or employees, performing the least challenging tasks. It’s economically preferable that we have a minimum wage rate of sufficient purchasing power. A job of lesser wage’s purchasing power is of lesser economic benefit to our nation.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[CFM]

CFM, it's economically preferable that we have a minimum wage rate of substantially greater purchasing power, rather than permit it to be reduced. Respectfully, Supposn

Not to those employers that are forced to pay a higher wages to someone with little to no skills.

It's not as simple as you make it out. Increased labor costs on Business A isn't the only labor costs for which Business A feels an effect. If they get supplies from Business B, C, and D, when labors costs go up for them, prices of the supplies they sell to Business A also go up. Businesses don't run mutually exclusive from one another and those that pretend raising the minimum wage doesn't make a difference operate under the mindset that they do.

 

[Supposn]

Originally Posted by Supposn
CFM, it's economically preferable that we have a minimum wage rate of substantially greater purchasing power, rather than permit it to be reduced. Respectfully, Supposn

Not to those employers that are forced to pay a higher wages to someone with little to no skills.

It's not as simple as you make it out. Increased labor costs on Business A isn't the only labor costs for which Business A feels an effect. If they get supplies from Business B, C, and D, when labors costs go up for them, prices of the supplies they sell to Business A also go up. Businesses don't run mutually exclusive from one another and those that pretend raising the minimum wage doesn't make a difference operate under the mindset that they do.

CFM, the federal minimum wage rate is of no competitive advantage or disadvantage between USA enterprises.
Regarding exporters of USA products, I’m a proponent of USA adopting the improved trade policy described by Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article.
(Refer to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_certificates ). Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Nordberg]

Originally Posted by Supposn
CFM, it's economically preferable that we have a minimum wage rate of substantially greater purchasing power, rather than permit it to be reduced. Respectfully, Supposn
CFM, the federal minimum wage rate is of no competitive advantage or disadvantage between USA enterprises.
Regarding exporters of USA products, I’m a proponent of USA adopting the improved trade policy described by Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article.
(Refer to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_certificates ). Respectfully, Supposn

If you are concerned about American business competitiveness, institute universal medical care an take the cost and complications of healthcare off their backs.

 

[Supposn]

If you are concerned about American business competitiveness, institute universal medical care an take the cost and complications of healthcare off their backs.

Nordberg, you’re beyond the topic of this thread and this forum, but I do not disagree with you.
Respectfully, Supposn

Catastrophic medical insurance:
… Catastrophic medical expenditures paid on behalf of individual patients are drastic costs to all; (i.e. to individual persons or others such as medical insurance plans) that pay those expenditures. They increase the costs and prices of all (commercial, or nonprofit or government) administered medical insurance. … Catastrophic medical insurance should be patient’s entitlement regardless if the patient was or was not previously insured. Participating Affordable Care Act insurers are required to accept high-risk client’s and catastrophic expenses are more likely to occur among those clients. …

Additional costs for “Medicare for all”?
Estimating The additional increases of federal through local tax rates to fund “M4A” should consider USA taxpayer's current aggregate direct and indirect healthcare spending. Those include but are not limited to their purchases of insurance, and out-of-pocket costs. There's what's not covered by individual plans, those plans annual deductibles, co-payments. The U.S. Congressional Budget Office has never been funded to make such a study.
It's not certain if M4A would net increase medical costs to USA taxpayers or considering the net economic and social benefits due to M4A, to what extent it would, (beyond it's other benefits to our entire nation), may be of net benefit to USA's aggregate taxpayers. …

Medicare, USA’s platinum standard of healthcare insurance.
It should be noted that Medicare is not socialized medicine; it is socialized medical insurance. It is the platinum standard of USA medical insurance.
It was necessary because commercial insurers failed to provide affordable healthcare insurance for the elderly which was and is an impossible task for a commercial insurer. ...

 

[CFM]

Originally Posted by Supposn
CFM, it's economically preferable that we have a minimum wage rate of substantially greater purchasing power, rather than permit it to be reduced. Respectfully, Supposn
CFM, the federal minimum wage rate is of no competitive advantage or disadvantage between USA enterprises.
Regarding exporters of USA products, I’m a proponent of USA adopting the improved trade policy described by Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article.
(Refer to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_certificates ). Respectfully, Supposn

You're a proponent of raising the wages of those that have shown to have no skills and no desire to do any better. In other words, they offer nothing but beg for everything.

 

[Supposn]

You're a proponent of raising the wages of those that have shown to have no skills and no desire to do any better. In other words, they offer nothing but beg for everything.

CFM:

Minimum wage is an issue of character.

The essence of personal and political opposition to the FMW rate.

The federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate is of net social and economic benefit to our nation. It has never been among the major causes of the U.S. dollar’s inflation; on the contrary, it’s certainly among inflations’ victims.

No employees are poorer and no enterprises suffer any competitive disadvantage to any USA enterprises due to the FMW rate.

[there’s no doubt that USA’s higher wage rates are a cause of our products’ price disadvantages in comparison to products from lower-wage nations; but although the elimination of our FMW rate laws would be greatly detrimental to our nation’s net social and economic well-being, eliminating it would accomplish extremely little to remedy our products’ global price disadvantages.
[Refer to Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article.]

I suppose most USA’s population, (significantly more than a 10% plurality) to some extent approve of federal minimum rate’s existence. There are few among wealthy or competent people that are opposed to the federal minimum rate.

A great proportion of minimum rate opponents lack self-esteem. They need whatever affirmation of their own worth that they can derive by being able to look down upon people experiencing lesser financial conditions. They cannot acknowledge even to themselves their fears of improving the financial conditions of others would consequentially reduce their own social status. That’s the essence of personal and political opposition to the FMW rate.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[CFM]

CFM:

A great proportion of minimum rate opponents lack self-esteem. They need whatever affirmation of their own worth that they can derive by being able to look down upon people experiencing lesser financial conditions. They cannot acknowledge even to themselves their fears of improving the financial conditions of others would consequentially reduce their own social status. That’s the essence of personal and political opposition to the FMW rate.

I have no problem with self esteem. My status wouldn't be reduced by someone making more especially when I know the reason they do it isn't because they earned but because the government forced an employer to pay them even more above what they offer in skills. What I've noticed is that those demanding a higher wage rarely, if ever, say what they'll do to earn it. They demand more but offer nothing in return.

I suppose most USA’s population, (significantly more than a 10% plurality) to some extent approve of federal minimum rate’s existence. There are few among wealthy or competent people that are opposed to the federal minimum rate.

There you go assuming you can speak for anyone but yourself. There are plenty among those forced to pay someone more than they're worth that oppose it. Try having to pay someone that provides skills worth $2/hour at least $7.25/hour. It's an automatic loss.

 

[Supposn]

… I have no problem with self esteem. My status wouldn't be reduced by someone making more especially when I know the reason they do it isn't because they earned but because the government forced an employer to pay them even more above what they offer in skills. What I've noticed is that those demanding a higher wage rarely, if ever, say what they'll do to earn it. They demand more but offer nothing in return.

I suppose most USA’s population, (significantly more than a 10% plurality) to some extent approve of federal minimum rate’s existence. There are few among wealthy or competent people that are opposed to the federal minimum rate.

There you go assuming you can speak for anyone but yourself. There are plenty among those forced to pay someone more than they're worth that oppose it. Try having to pay someone that provides skills worth $2/hour at least $7.25/hour. It's an automatic loss.

CFM, employers are not generally altruistic, and they are not required to hire employees, or to hire any particular person. It’s assumed that enterprise managers perceived probable benefits due to their hiring decisions, or net detriments if they didn’t hire someone to do the job. Enterprises are not required to be employers, and they are not required to hire any specific persons.

Employers in the USA are legally prohibited from paying less than the legally applicable minimum wage rate and that’s what you are opposed to. Respectfully, Supposn