Now The Fight For $20/hr?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

If the Federal minimum wage goes from $7.25 (most states are already higher) to $20, does this person really think that all companies will just be able to absorb the extra $12.75/hr out of their profits? Do they not realize that the cost will be then passed along to the consumers, who will then have to pay more for the same lifestyle they previously had? If the people who were already making $20/hr, or $30/hr then have to pay more for the same products, aren't we just making the middle class poorer? A rich person doesn't care if Milk is $2 or $6, but the middle class sure does, and the people making minimum wage will find their $20 doesn't go really any further than their $7.25 used to.

https://smallbusiness.chron.com/average-profit-margin-restaurant-13477.html
In 2012, Wendy's profit margin was 0.3% and the fast food industry as a whole was 2.4%, which is already a small but still inflated number as McDonald's had just under 20%. There's 0 chance that even McDonald's could absorb a 276% increase in Federal minimum wage, let alone all of the other fast food companies.

It's the same when you look at other companies as well. Kroger's net profit margin in has been in the 1.3%-1.8% range for the vast majority of 2006-2019. Where do they get the money to pay $20/hr without passing it onto the customers?


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/rashida-tlaib-the-federal-minimum-wage-should-be-dollar20-an-hour/ar-AAEIVxz

Quote:"Big fights like this one, $15. When we started it, it should have been $15," the Michigan Democrat said in a video posted by America Rising on Monday. "Now I think it should be $20 ... It should be $20 an hour. $18-20 an hour."

Tlaib said the higher minimum was because the cost of "a lot of things" has gone up.

Tlaib, 42, has been on the front lines of the "Fight for $15." In 2018, the congresswoman was arrested during a protest in support of a national fast food workers walkout to demand a $15 per hour minimum wage.

"These corporations are making billions off of our blood and sweat," then-candidate Tlaib said. "That's the most American thing you can do today: to push back, because they are pushing our children into poverty, because we deserve better."

This week, video surfaced of a screaming Tlaib being forcibly removed from a Trump event in 2016.

[BmorePat87]

$20 is high. It's $16.73 adjusted for inflation if we're using 2012 as the year that the $15 an hour protests began.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-24-2019, 01:34 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: $20 is high. It's $16.73 adjusted for inflation if we're using 2012 as the year that the $15 an hour protests began.

I think there would be a whole lot more traction with these movements if they stopped pushing for the Federal minimum wage to be raised and just worried about their City/State. Worry about your own shit rather than trying to force your standard upon the rest of the country, and it'd probably go a lot better.

$20/hr is $38,400/yr at minimum wage. 

$38,400/yr in Cincinnati has the same cost of living power as $87,400 in Seattle. Can you imagine if Seattle had to pay a minimum wage of $87,400 to everyone? Flipping burgers at a local fast food place? $87,400/yr. Bagging groceries? $87,400/yr. That's even comparing a city vs a city. Imagine somewhere rural.

That's why the Federal minimum needs to stay as a low baseline, and places more expensive to live should adjust accordingly, which is well within their power to do without forcing it upon everyone else. Some states are just significantly cheaper to live in than others. Maybe this is just a sign that they need to stop crowding into a handful of states that they can't afford to live in, and do what any normal rational person did in the past and move to somewhere they could rather than trying to put a square peg in a round hole by trying to live in a trendy place you can't afford, thus compounding the problem for anyone else who also wants to live there.

Besides, it took only 7 years to go from a fight for $15 to a fight for $20. At this pace we'll be at a fight for $30 by 2033. At that point just start using Monopoly money, or some Venezuelan Bolivar.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Yeah, we should probably lower the minimum wage to $1.00/hour that way companies will make everything more affordable.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Will social security, welfare and government assistance get a raise too?

The only thing raising minimum wage does is make more people making minimum wage. Employers are not going to give someone making over the current minimum wage and equivalent raise if the minimum wage goes up. People making $15.00 an hour before the increase will still be making $15.00 after.

[Aquapod770]

https://www.epionline.org/oped/new-report-marks-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-fight-for-15/?fbclid=IwAR23t9iTKZF1Q6x840WbwCCh6HIIjnxqmE53YRjedKFwlJ1p71nJRYMtDgE

Quote:We conclude that the second wage increase to $13 reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by around 9 percent,” the report stated, “while hourly wages in such jobs increased by around 3 percent. Consequently, total payroll fell for such jobs, implying that the minimum wage ordinance lowered low-wage employees’ earnings by an average of $125 per month in 2016.

This is my shocked face

[BmorePat87]

(07-24-2019, 01:59 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I think there would be a whole lot more traction with these movements if they stopped pushing for the Federal minimum wage to be raised and just worried about their City/State. Worry about your own shit rather than trying to force your standard upon the rest of the country, and it'd probably go a lot better.

$20/hr is $38,400/yr at minimum wage. 

$38,400/yr in Cincinnati has the same cost of living power as $87,400 in Seattle. Can you imagine if Seattle had to pay a minimum wage of $87,400 to everyone? Flipping burgers at a local fast food place? $87,400/yr. Bagging groceries? $87,400/yr. That's even comparing a city vs a city. Imagine somewhere rural.

That's why the Federal minimum needs to stay as a low baseline, and places more expensive to live should adjust accordingly, which is well within their power to do without forcing it upon everyone else. Some states are just significantly cheaper to live in than others. Maybe this is just a sign that they need to stop crowding into a handful of states that they can't afford to live in, and do what any normal rational person did in the past and move to somewhere they could rather than trying to put a square peg in a round hole by trying to live in a trendy place you can't afford, thus compounding the problem for anyone else who also wants to live there.

Besides, it took only 7 years to go from a fight for $15 to a fight for $20. At this pace we'll be at a fight for $30 by 2033. At that point just start using Monopoly money, or some Venezuelan Bolivar.

Their argument is that $15 should be the lowest baseline and areas with a higher cost of living would go above it. 

I'm on the fence with $15, but there's no reason why $10 shouldn't be the minimum across the nation.

[Au165]

(07-24-2019, 03:35 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Their argument is that $15 should be the lowest baseline and areas with a higher cost of living would go above it. 

I'm on the fence with $15, but there's no reason why $10 shouldn't be the minimum across the nation.

It's funny when adjusting for inflation, minimum wage in 1968 would be the equivalent of $11.76 today.

[jj22]

I think it needs to be raised. The people against it can't have it both ways.

They complain that the benefits of not working are too good. Folks on welfare, food stamps, section 8 etc, have it better then folks working full time jobs.

If this is the case, then why not help them get jobs that will pay better than welfare?

Who can blame them for staying on the system when the alternative is to work for $7.50 and not be able to afford food or a home, health insurance, childcare etc.

To simplify my argument. You can't complain that they have it too good on the "system", but not recognize how worse they'd have it if they worked for minimum wage. Raise the wage don't make it better for them to not work.

$7.50 isn't worth going from paying $8 a month in rent to $500. Getting free health insurance to paying $150 a month, losing $450 a month in food stamps to having to pay that out of pocket etc, losing subsidies for childcare to having to pay $1000 a month for it... etc.

[*Nately120*]

(07-24-2019, 01:59 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Besides, it took only 7 years to go from a fight for $15 to a fight for $20. At this pace we'll be at a fight for $30 by 2033. At that point just start using Monopoly money, or some Venezuelan Bolivar.

We've been printing and using fake money for a long time. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-25-2019, 12:17 PM)jj22 Wrote: I think it needs to be raised. The people against it can't have it both ways.

They complain that the benefits of not working are too good. Folks on welfare, food stamps, section 8 etc, have it better then folks working full time jobs.

If this is the case, then why not help them get jobs that will pay better than welfare?

Who can blame them for staying on the system when the alternative is to work for $7.50 and not be able to afford food or a home, health insurance, childcare etc.

To simplify my argument. You can't complain that they have it too good on the "system", but not recognize how worse they'd have it if they worked for minimum wage. Raise the wage don't make it better for them to not work.

$7.50 isn't worth going from paying $8 a month in rent to $500. Getting free health insurance to paying $150 a month, losing $450 a month in food stamps to having to pay that out of pocket etc, losing subsidies for childcare to having to pay $1000 a month for it... etc.

This is why I believe a minimum income should be set for a family, based on number in it.

1 parent 1 kid (+child support)
Say that parent has a job it pays 24k per year.
the min for that family is 30k. (Currently that number is $21,330 at poverty level, I would say bump it to 125% and go with $26,660 and then adjust for the area they live in, establish an average cost of living nationwide then adjust if their city is above/below that mark).
Gov supplements the difference of 6k.
This is much better than the Gov paying for everything.

Have it scale based on number of people in household.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-29-2019, 11:17 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: This is why I believe a minimum income should be set for a family, based on number in it.

1 parent 1 kid (+child support)
Say that parent has a job it pays 24k per year.
the min for that family is 30k. (Currently that number is $21,330 at poverty level, I would say bump it to 125% and go with $26,660 and then adjust for the area they live in, establish an average cost of living nationwide then adjust if their city is above/below that mark).
Gov supplements the difference of 6k.
This is much better than the Gov paying for everything.

Have it scale based on number of people in household.

That would just incentivize people to have more children. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-29-2019, 11:17 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: This is why I believe a minimum income should be set for a family, based on number in it.

1 parent 1 kid (+child support)
Say that parent has a job it pays 24k per year.
the min for that family is 30k. (Currently that number is $21,330 at poverty level, I would say bump it to 125% and go with $26,660 and then adjust for the area they live in, establish an average cost of living nationwide then adjust if their city is above/below that mark).
Gov supplements the difference of 6k.
This is much better than the Gov paying for everything.

Have it scale based on number of people in household.

Octamom would be rich.

[Benton]

(07-24-2019, 01:59 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I think there would be a whole lot more traction with these movements if they stopped pushing for the Federal minimum wage to be raised and just worried about their City/State. Worry about your own shit rather than trying to force your standard upon the rest of the country, and it'd probably go a lot better.

That's my thing. 

Cost of living is insanely different from region to region. Where I live, $20 an hour is above average and with lower housing and utility prices, it's livable. The majority make less than (I'm going off a number from a few years ago) $12. A few hours away in Louisville, $12 an hour isn't enough to live off of.

On the other hand, something has to be done eventually. We tried going all in on the free market approach and we ended up with flat wages. Businesses don't typically pass increases in profits on to employees, or reward steady growth. 

[Benton]

(07-29-2019, 11:17 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: This is why I believe a minimum income should be set for a family, based on number in it.

1 parent 1 kid (+child support)
Say that parent has a job it pays 24k per year.
the min for that family is 30k. (Currently that number is $21,330 at poverty level, I would say bump it to 125% and go with $26,660 and then adjust for the area they live in, establish an average cost of living nationwide then adjust if their city is above/below that mark).
Gov supplements the difference of 6k.
This is much better than the Gov paying for everything.

Have it scale based on number of people in household.

That already happens, to a degree, as gov't assistance is based on dependents. You get more food, daycare reimbusement, etc based on your household size.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-30-2019, 12:24 AM)Benton Wrote: That already happens, to a degree, as gov't assistance is based on dependents. You get more food, daycare reimbusement, etc based on your household size.

Yep I know. but we could impose a cap, and those that can work, need to work, not sitting a home all day making more.