117th Congress: DEMS IN DISARRAY!!!111!!

[LynahFan]

Since we're in the business of setting minimum wages, why not set it at $100/hr? $15 is nothing. Wouldn't people be better off making $200,000+ each year for tending bar?

Another strawman - you are on a roll.

Going too far, too fast, in the wrong places leads to seriously negative effects (hyperinflation and unemployment). Every person in favor of a $15 minimum wage in the US would agree that there is an upper limit to how far we should go right now. We may disagree about the value of the upper limit, but not its existence. We just strongly believe that the optimal (greatest good) value is higher than $7.25.

 

[SJHovey]

;n3644998]

You're thinking about it backwards. Just because some states are above the current minimum wage, but below $15, it doesn't mean people in those states are being paid a livable wage.

In this case, it's the federal government saying a person living in the least expensive place in America deserves to make $15 an hour.
But as you said, there needs to be state control over locations with higher cost of living.
so they can then choose to raise it higher.

But that goes back to what I wrote earlier. Some states obviously disagree with your assessment that the least expensive place in America needs a $15/hr wage. That's why you see representatives from those areas objecting.

 

[Kepler]

It would be like trying to set a "world minimum wage." You think the cost of living, and what businesses can afford to pay in wages, are the same in Hong Kong as they are in some small city in Egypt?

Since we're in the business of setting minimum wages, why not set it at $100/hr? $15 is nothing. Wouldn't people be better off making $200,000+ each year for tending bar?

The second paragraph idiocy notwithstanding, a world minimum wage is in fact a very worthy goal and one of the greatest things globalism, if done correctly, could achieve. Stopping capital from fleeing to wherever slave labor is available would start to equalize the criminally unbalanced tug of war between capital and labor.

 

[psych]

But that goes back to what I wrote earlier. Some states obviously disagree with your assessment that the least expensive place in America needs a $15/hr wage. That's why you see representatives from those areas objecting.

What’s odd about your argument is you say Joe Manchin is one of the problems in this minimum wage discussion. Joe Manchin is a representative of probably the poorest state in the Union, and the main conduit between the two political parties. If you can’t take his word for it, why are you taking anyone else’s? Hell, even Republicans like asshat Tom Cotton are saying $10 is feasible, and indexing it to inflation. Granted, what he’s asking for in exchange will likely never happen, but $10>$7.25. Since Collins agrees with the Romney/Cotton proposal, and voted against a minimum wage increase to $10.10 in 2014 for federal employees, clearly she’s to the right of Manchin on this one, and it’s unlikely any Republican supports anything over $10.

 

[LynahFan]

The second paragraph idiocy notwithstanding, a world minimum wage is in fact a very worthy goal and one of the greatest things globalism, if done correctly, could achieve. Stopping capital from fleeing to wherever slave labor is available would start to equalize the criminally unbalanced tug of war between capital and labor.

Hey, the $15/hr minimum applies equally to CEOs, too, you know?

 

[Kepler]

Hey, the $15/hr minimum applies equally to CEOs, too, you know?

 

[LynahFan]

Asked and answered. :^)

 

[SJHovey]

What’s odd about your argument is you say Joe Manchin is one of the problems in this minimum wage discussion. Joe Manchin is a representative of probably the poorest state in the Union, and the main conduit between the two political parties. If you can’t take his word for it, why are you taking anyone else’s? Hell, even Republicans like asshat Tom Cotton are saying $10 is feasible, and indexing it to inflation. Granted, what he’s asking for in exchange will likely never happen, but $10>$7.25. Since Collins agrees with the Romney/Cotton proposal, and voted against a minimum wage increase to $10.10 in 2014 for federal employees, clearly she’s to the right of Manchin on this one, and it’s unlikely any Republican supports anything over $10.

Manchin's not a "problem." He is just one of the people who are stating that they disagree with the idea floated by some that $15/hr should be the very minimum wage for the very poorest part of the country.

First, I'm not here suggesting that people should just be able to live on $7/hr. Heck, I couldn't live on $15/hr.

I think there are two problems with the floated federal $15 minimum wage. First, as I posted earlier, I think trying to decide a basic minimum wage on a country wide basis encompasses too broad a group. I think doing it on a city wide basis approaches a too narrow a group problem, but barely. I think a statewide minimum wage, while not perfect, is a decent compromise. If we're going to have a federal minimum wage, I think it should err on the low side so as to not impede too much on the state determinations.

Second, moving the federal minimum wage from $7 or $7.25/ hr or whatever it is now to $15/hr is simply too big a boost for some areas of the country. Minnesota has been raising their minimum wage every year now for a number of years. States like California or NY have maybe already approached $15/hr, or exceeded it. Thus, this move would have a minimal effect on Minnesota, NY and CA. But for states still dictating a $7 or $7.25/hr minimum wage, making them double it is simply too much too soon.

 

[psych]

Manchin's not a "problem." He is just one of the people who are stating that they disagree with the idea floated by some that $15/hr should be the very minimum wage for the very poorest part of the country.

First, I'm not here suggesting that people should just be able to live on $7/hr. Heck, I couldn't live on $15/hr.

I think there are two problems with the floated federal $15 minimum wage. First, as I posted earlier, I think trying to decide a basic minimum wage on a country wide basis encompasses too broad a group. I think doing it on a city wide basis approaches a too narrow a group problem, but barely. I think a statewide minimum wage, while not perfect, is a decent compromise. If we're going to have a federal minimum wage, I think it should err on the low side so as to not impede too much on the state determinations.

Second, moving the federal minimum wage from $7 or $7.25/ hr or whatever it is now to $15/hr is simply too big a boost for some areas of the country. Minnesota has been raising their minimum wage every year now for a number of years. States like California or NY have maybe already approached $15/hr, or exceeded it. Thus, this move would have a minimal effect on Minnesota, NY and CA. But for states still dictating a $7 or $7.25/hr minimum wage, making them double it is simply too much too soon.

If West Virginia can afford $11/hr., anywhere in this country can afford that bump in pay. Nowhere in my post was I talking about $15/hr.

 

[aparch]

But for states still dictating a $7 or $7.25/hr minimum wage, making them double it is simply too much too soon.

It's not like this was going to be an overnight case anyway. They were going to phase it in over the next few years.

Every GOP talking point I've seen make it sound like it's am overnight problem. You're telling me in five years (guessing), with a rebounding reconomy after the pandemic, that some businesses are going to find the minimum wage increase unbearable? Then how TF did they survive the pandemic?

 

[aparch]

God, I really wish the Dems had a Rush Limbaugh equivalent. Can you imagine the sh** that we could get done if there was one?

The fact that anything left of the insurrectionists is considered "extremist" to conservatives would be laughable if they hadn't just tried to storm the fu**ing Capitol.

 

[LynahFan]

Well, by a simple inflation calculator, the minimum wage when I entered the work force would be equivalent to a minimum wage today of $26.42.

Seems by that account, $15 would be the least we should be able to do. Also consider, a gallon of gas then, $.59, would be pretty close to what it is today, $2.71. So my minimum wage then would buy me more gas then than my more than twice minimum wage salary can today. That's how fucked up this whole argument is.

Yes - the Overton window on this particular topic is completely off the right side of the chart. Any minimum wage law that is not indexed to inflation creates a structural provision that screws the working poor *exponentially* more each and every year. That's what's been happening for the last 40 years, so now the Right considers the ability to do this a birthright, and we're oppressing them by restoring equity.

 

[Spartanforlife4]

Re: congresspeople representing the views of their constituencies - 60% of Republicans support the Covid bill yet it will get literally no GOP votes in either house, provided it passes. So clearly voting for what their constituents want isn’t the only reason they vote a certain way.


re: minimum wage going up too fast - They’re not doubling it overnight, there would be a timeline to phase it in. If the argument is that it’s been kept low for so long that fixing it would cause issues, well, that’s not exactly an argument to keep
the status quo and make the situation even worse for the future.

 

[BassAle]

making them double it is simply too much too soon.

It would be phased in over several years.

Isn't WalMart at $11/hr, and Target and Costco are like $15/hr? I can't imagine anyone else actually paying federal minimum wage, and actually getting employees that are capable of doing more than remaining conscious during their shift. It's not going to double wages for most employers.

 

[LynahFan]

It would be phased in over several years.

Isn't WalMart at $11/hr, and Target and Costco are like $15/hr? I can't imagine anyone else actually paying federal minimum wage, and actually getting employees that are capable of doing more than remaining conscious during their shift. It's not going to double wages for most employers.

It's not the big companies. It's the mom-and-pop house cleaning services who hire Les Miserables, pay them $7.25/hr, and collect $25/hr from the clients. And their equivalents.

 

[walrus]

It's not the big companies. It's the mom-and-pop house cleaning services who hire Les Miserables, pay them $7.25/hr, and collect $25/hr from the clients. And their equivalents.

How much should their wages be if Employer charges 25 an hour?

 

[Kepler]

How much should their wages be if Employer charges 25 an hour?

The contractor rule of thumb in my industry is the wrap rate (that's the total charge to the customer as a multiplier of the direct labor rate) is 2. The wrap covers the contracting firm's costs in developing and compensating the employee, plus a profit surcharge.

There are small body shops that are notorious for existing simply to cash in the wrap. And a few large companies cough Booze Allen.

 

[LynahFan]

The contractor rule of thumb in my industry is the wrap rate (that's the total charge to the customer as a multiplier of the direct labor rate) is 2. The wrap covers the contracting firm's costs in developing and compensating the employee, plus a profit surcharge.

There are small body shops that are notorious for existing simply to cash in the wrap. And a few large companies cough Booze Allen.

Right. But those are for specialty contractors, where there is actual expertise involved. If you want to job shop talent to federal contractors, you need to know the DFARs, you probably need to sponsor and maintain security clearances, administer health care plans and 401(k)s, etc. In other words, there is actual work to do and relatively "scarce" expertise involved.

To hire, schedule, and pay housecleaners? Anything more than 1.25 seems exploitative to me.

 

[Kepler]

Right. But those are for specialty contractors, where there is actual expertise involved. If you want to job shop talent to federal contractors, you need to know the DFARs, you probably need to sponsor and maintain security clearances, administer health care plans and 401(k)s, etc. In other words, there is actual work to do and relatively "scarce" expertise involved.

To hire, schedule, and pay housecleaners? Anything more than 1.25 seems exploitative to me.

Oh I see.

Yeah, I have no idea what those guys charge, though I assume a lot more cuz you know human trafficking.

 

[walrus]

Right. But those are for specialty contractors, where there is actual expertise involved. If you want to job shop talent to federal contractors, you need to know the DFARs, you probably need to sponsor and maintain security clearances, administer health care plans and 401(k)s, etc. In other words, there is actual work to do and relatively "scarce" expertise involved.

To hire, schedule, and pay housecleaners? Anything more than 1.25 seems exploitative to me.

So to not exploit the employees of a cleaning business making 7.25 an hour, the employer should be charging a wee bit over 9 bucks an hour to its customers?