A hotly contested topic these days- What should the Federal minimum wage be?
federal: $10-$12; big cities: $14-$17.
cue dozens of AFers “federal: $0; big cities: $0”.
I say $10 federal, which is generous in some places. Anything beyong that, cities/states can do.
$0
People should take Econ 101 and learn about price floors and their effects.
Certain sales jobs are 100% commission only, so I’m not advocating something I’ve never taken part in.
let the market decide
$35.
Use the inflation to get out of my mortgage and get rates off zero.
I think $10 for federal is reasonable. A 2 income family working 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year would gross $40,000. Considering median household income is in the mid $50,000’s, $40k seems reasonable. If states or cities want to go higher, that’s up to them and their citizens.
does Econ 101 discuss the EITC so people don’t starve to death? a minimum wage partly pushes the onus of feeding the working class onto companies. a living wage entirely pushes the onus of feeding the working clas onto companies. Econ 101 doesn’t discuss the intangibles that other social sciences like sociology and political science discuss. you can’t site one social science’s answer as being the correct real world answer.
There should be no minimum wage. It does funky stuff to labor markets and businesses. We should instead have a guaranteed basic income. Essentially that is what we’re trying to achieve with a minimum wage anyway.
A federal minimum wage should be set high enough to ensure all our citizens can afford decent housing, clothes, food, and utilities. And healthcare and probably enough to save for retirement. And something extra to allow them to replace old or wornout necessities like ceiling fans, pots, pans, and dishes. Probably should include enough to do some slight remodelling each year too. Something for some new wallpaper or paint. Everyone deserves a bidet, so include that in there. And a pet too. Can’t imagine anyone growing up without a good family dog. And, even with a dog, one can never be too safe so they have to have a security system too. Cable TV or Netflix is obviously included, and Internet goes without saying. Cell phones with a monthly data plan are a must. Enough for each child to play any and all sports they want. Karate is mandatory. And, if it’s a single parent household, a monthly subscription to online dating sites should be wrapped into the cost of living too. Family values are paramount and a two-parent household is the right way to do things. Oh, and enough to tithe or donate to their church on a weekly basis, as well as four dollars a week to buy two Powerball tickets.
So, whatever that comes out to.
^ Don’t forget Amazon Prime. People will actually make money with the free 2 day shipping if they buy enough stuff.
I’m not sure why it’s the government’s job to provide a ‘living wage’. Honestly I would prefer to help people through charity/community service.
That’s the problem with all you stinking lazy liberals. You want the government to take up the work of being a decent human being for you. It’s disgusting really and you should be ashamed of yourselves. To make things easy for you, you are ok forcing everyone to hand over their cash to help the poor. Do you realize that completely takes the morality out of the act? So there you have it, the decay of the moral fiber of our communities rests squarely on the lazy liberals who want to outsource the work of being a decent person to some goverment bureaucracy.
i dont believe that the government should keep most people from starving, exceptions (children ect). If someone is lazy and able bodied in the United States (I’ve never been to Canada), they deserve it, let them starve. I worked and studied quite a few 80-90+ hrs a week this year already. Why should a cent of my money go to support someone working less than me? And when I pass away, they want to take some of my after tax money that I want to leave to my children to give to theirs? **** them.
Because most of us do not want to live in a society that has people starving to death on the streets.
I’d rather support a handful of deadbeats than be forced to plug my noes at their rotting corpses. Not to mention, the majority of people on assistance would rather NOT receive handouts. But tell yourself whatever helps you sleep at night.
Without a minimum wage, corporations will leach off of the taxpayer via subsidies. For example, if you need a $10 minimum wage to exist at a poverty level in Midland, TX, and Greenie’s boss pays him $7, then the state will need to provide $3 to make sure Greenie doesn’t starve to death. What’s happened here? The state is subsidizing his company for not providing a living wage. A minimum wage standard would transfer that minimal existence burden to the employer. If you’re working 50hrs per week and not making enough to survive, then your employer is a free loader on other taxpayers. Now, I probably disagree with the left wing types on what poverty is and what the minimum wage should be, but we shouldn’t have a system where employers are freeloading on other taxpayers. That’s unjust.
Then these people turn to crime. I’d rather give someone a minimal existence than pay for their prison cell, which is much more costly. Harm reduction, to the taxpayer.
what did humans do before corporations? I don’t get how anyone survived without them providing a living wage. hmmm.
the mental gymnastics it takes to justify an immoral act to achieve an outcome is comical. I know…here comes the ‘corporate welfare’ whambulance. before you little minds chime in with this, let me say i’m against all forms of government welfare, including corporate welfare.
^ You think 18th century England was preferable to today? So no income, you just rot and die on the street? No big deal.
The beneficiary of the subsidy is the one that gets it. In your case, it’s the person, not the corporation. You’re building a bridge on false pretences.
The primary beneficiary of the subsidy is the person, but in the absence of the subsidy the corporation would have to pay a higher wage (your workers dying of exposure or malnutrition isn’t a place you want to be). So the corporation should bare that cost. Or avoid it via a minimum wage high enough to provide food/shelter.