I have a problem with a uniform national minimum wage. A 2 bedroom apartment where I live can be had for around $500. A similar 2 bedroom apartment where my son lives, in So. Cal is around $1200. Utilities are significantly higher, food is higher, fuel is higher in So. Cal. Not sure why we should impose the same expense on employers here who have necessarily less revenues than a So. Cal counterpart.

My 2 bedroom apartment in Omaha in a good part of town costs me a little over 500. This same cannot be said for someone living in New york city or California. The minimum wage shouldn't just be adjusted according to inflation but standard of living should be worked into the calculations. Not doing so will cause a lot of unforeseen problems to local business made to pay a living wage for a city like New York

some new apts being advertised out in Hollywood. Studios are starting at $1,900.00. Insane, even by SoCal standards...unless near the beach where Santa Monica studios can easily be $2K a month.

Individual states and cities are free to raise their minimum wage above that floor.

NYC or So. Cal isn't the same as in Kansas.

A $15/hr minimum wage is about $30k per year for a full-time job. Rent in expensive cities is going to be around half of that income.

Fuel costs more, taxes are higher...the minimum wage is based on cost of living someplace....pretty sure it isn't nebraska. Businesses in Nebraska sell things cheaper and pay people less. People here making $15 are able to live pretty well. ..pretending that there is no difference in cost of living, and one size fits all is silliness. If minimum wage is $15 in Kansas, it should be $30 in NYC or LA.

I'm saying you set a national floor, and expensive states and cities can set a higher one. You need this flexibility because "expensive" isn't consistent - Detroit used to be much more expensive, for example.

As for living it up in NE or KS on $15/hr, that's because $15/hr includes the productivity gains since the 1960s. The $10.10 figure just covers inflation. But people get about 50% more work done per day thanks to productivity gains. Resulting in the $15 number.

And let's face it, most likely $15 will be used as the "crazy liberals want HOW MUCH?!?!" number. Resulting in $10.10 looking reasonable, and thus able to pass.

Expensive states don't set a higher one, thus they need to be required to pay more?

After all, the majority of the strikes and protests have been in the high states and cities, not in Kansas.

The issue is that living here is cheaper, by applying the same minimum here as there it has a negative impact on these less expensive states. This could be changed simply by setting the minimum based on standard of living in the area applied rather than applying the NYC or LA living wage here.

And employers in less expensive places are penalized.

You don't seem to understand or care that a $15 minimum wage applied in Nebraska would have a dramatic effect on jobs and businesses. It would have no measurable effect on businesses in So.Cal. Why should business in an area with half the cost of living be required to pay the same minimum as an area with twice the cost of living?

Saying it is a floor over and over in the face of the argument I am presenting doesn't make the statement any less silly.

I can support a $10 minimum, I oppose a $15 minimum.

so companies get back the money spent on raises. There are other reasons why the wage is kept so low, the main one being that they want to keep people desperate so they can pay them whatever they want in this 'new economy' that is emerging.

Business claims and fears that raising the minimum wage will cause job losses is simply a knee jerk reaction. History disproves their fears and lies.

that in the long term, "businesses directly affected by it are in intense competition for consumers, and will take the raise out of profits rather than raise their prices"? It seems to me that when some fundamental cost goes up for ALL competitors, prices eventually rise across the board.

have to be made.

But I do think that raising the minimum wage must be done.

but I think it's fantasy to believe that companies will take this increased expense all out of profits instead of raising prices.

Based on the argument laid out, it should be MUCH higher, right?

I'm ready to advocate for a living wage based on community standards. Also job sharing at no loss of pay until everyone who wants a job has one. And you take it out of profits, not by raising prices.