Last edited Sun Apr 3, 2016, 10:22 AM - Edit history (1)

Sure, some of what he promotes may sound impossible, just like that minimum wage did in NY. But if you at least *begin* the conversation, maybe eventually you get what you want, or at least you may get some movement in that direction. If you don't even ask, you get nothing, you've given up to the other side before you've even gotten started. Neither Sanders nor Clinton will get 100% of what they propose. I'd rather get half of a bigger loaf.

And IMO, if we got half a loaf from either of them, my sense is Hillary's answer would be "we did great, we got the best we can get" while Bernie's response would be "that's a great start, but we need to keep fighting over the coming years." It comes down to, in the long term, what kind of country you want America to be.

This would be moot if Bernie had zero chance of winning, but as long as he has a serious shot, we have a serious shot. (And predictwise says--and Krugman quotes--that Sanders has a 10% chance, which to me, is a serious shot.)

Promising the impossible isn't serious politics.

Five developed nations (which are doing fine in economic terms) that have no legal minimum wage are Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080515/5-developed-countries-without-minimum-wages.asp

Negotiations between employers and employees are far more sensible than top down thresholds invented by politicians.

There needs to be some mechanism to assure a living wage... that is, it is not going to happen by itself simply out of the benevolence of the employers.

A federal minimum wage may not be the ideal solution, but I think it would be a lot more difficult to legislate that all workers must be part of unions.

Whenever the minimum wage is set top down higher than 50% of the average GDP/capita,
you end up getting severe unemployment problems (one exception: New Zealand)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country

we'll still be behind the inflation curve. Unless it is indexed to inflation, and even then, this is a never-ending fight for fundamental fairness.

Try living in PaloAlto, San Francisco, in fact most of the inhabitable parts of California.....it is impossible...

silly

I think they are screwed in thinking and have screw the world

only complete idiots don't get it

Or did your cat lay on the keyboard?

want to explore this topic?

if you want some help with this subject - i will be happy to show you real information - looks like you really need help

Even the simplest economic truths....like, say, 'a "living wage" in Grand Island Nebraska is vastly different than a living wage in San Diego California'.....as I said before....only complete idiots don't get it...

i see nothing in any of your post that suggest that you have any knowledge of economics that is anything but the shit shoveled in chicago

if you can think - reword this

"Even the simplest economic truths....like, say, 'a "living wage" in Grand Island Nebraska is vastly different than a living wage in San Diego California'"

like someone not a rightwing asshole

can you?

what are the last three books that you have read that deal with economics?

Suspicions confirmed....have a nice day.

that is all you can do

have you read any book that deals with economics?

it would help you understand how far gone your thinking is

15 an hour anywhere sucks - get a clue

Which is perhaps what it should be both places. Instead what did Cali get big cheers for laat week?.... $10 and 15 by fucking 2022.....this is a ridiculous insult. I don't believe anyone who wants to work in Cali isn't already making $10 or more. My son was making $15 in N.SD County sweeping floors at a mom and pop liquor store 5 years ago.... $15 would create a painful equity adjustment ripple almost to the top in the nonprofit healthcare organization I work for...I would be fine with that if the pain was everywhere....all working together and all that...bit $15 would do nothing at all to the places that most need a higher wage.

Minimum wage should be scaled based on cost of living index or something...it isn't one size fits all anymore.

so very sorry for any misunderstanding

A person who has a "livable" wage in San Francisco would probably live like a king in a backwater town in Alabama...and a backwater town in Alabama can't support it. It can't be defined nationally at a specific amount. Wages need to be defined by cost of living in the general area.

vs. those working in the higher cost of living metro areas.

LA, New York, etc. have figured it out, they need a higher minimum wage for their area. The cost of living, added transportation expense, higher tax rates, higher rents, etc. Actually makes someone living off of $10 an hour in LA a lot poorer vs. someone living off of $10 an hour in Lone Pine. Its just the plain facts.

And there is virtually no upward push on wages (or for that matter drive to provide, low cost housing, convenient and reliable public transportation etc.) in the higher cost cities due to structural economic deficiencies and decades of oppressing unions and collective bargaining.

I could easily envision a national base minimum adjusted upward for the cost of living in the area.

On one hand, virtually every economist in the world says you're right. The BEST way to handle a minimum wage is to index it to the LOCAL cost of living. Doing so ensures that everyone gets (and maintains) a liveable wage without causing major economic disruption in areas with a lower cost of living.

The problem? If the minimum wage is $5 an hour in Alabama and $22 an hour in New York, you're setting the states up to compete with each other for jobs. New York is going to have a hard time convincing employers that they're citizens are worth four times as much money.

On top of this, you'll create an incentive for migration. How many $5 an hour Alabamans would relocate to New York if they could get $22 an hour for the exact same low skill job? This creates a major burden on social services in states like New York, while creating an economic incentive for states like Alabama to keep their cost of living low (exporting the states poor would likely be seen as a net positive by that states leadership).

Viewed from a purely economic perspective, a localized minimum wage makes a lot of sense (I used to believe in it myself). From a national perspective, and accounting for political and social realities, a national minimum wage makes even more sense.

In most of the country.

America’s minimum wage was raised to $7.25 per hour on July 24, 2009. It’s still there. Unlike almost all other federal benchmarks, the minimum wage is not updated for inflation.

The minimum wage reached its (inflation-adjusted) historic high in 1968, when it was raised from $1.40 to $1.60 per hour. Adjusted for inflation using the BLS online inflation calculator that would come to $10.55 per hour in 2012 dollars.

That $10.55 figure is the focus of a nationwide campaign organized by the National Employment Law Project (NELP). In today’s political climate it would certainly be a major accomplishment to achieve a $10.55 minimum wage. But $10.55 is still far too low.

Using 1968 as our benchmark for the minimum wage implies that low-wage Americans today should be making just as much as low-wage Americans were making 44 years ago. That benchmark is — frankly — ridiculous.



Can you imagine Americans of 1968 settling for a minimum wage standard of living that had been set based on 1924 standards? What about 1880 standards? At some point we should expect low-wage workers to start living better than they used to.

A better way to update the minimum wage is to benchmark it to personal income growth in the economy as a whole.

Per capita real personal income excluding current transfer receipts — that is, the personal income earned in the economy, excluding Social Security and other government programs, adjusted for inflation — has grown by 100.6% since 1968.

In other words, the NELP has it too low — by half. If our standard for minimum wages had kept pace with overall income growth in the American economy, it would now be $21.16 per hour.

Yes, had the US income distribution and US standards of decency remained exactly what it was in 1968, the minimum wage would now be $21.16 per hour.
- See more at: http://inequality.org/minimum-wage/#sthash.CNMTI3IK.dpuf

Politically I think punching for $15 and hitting $12 and change is probably about as good as we can expect (and, hell, it's not remotely a bad thing to more than double the minimum wage...)

I know some of the conservatives out there will say that such a hike will hurt small business owners, but following their logic, in a "free market" no one is entitled to a successful business.
(The government could always subsidize small business owners, rather than giants like Wal-Mart.)

Especially if you live in New York or LA. A higher wage is definitely needed.