Should minimum wage be set by municipalities?

Since minimum wage is supposed to cover the base cost of living (rent, basic utilities, transportation, and basic clothing) if you work forty hours week, it seems having one rate nationwide doesn't really meet the needs of each area. Because the COL in New York is going to be much more than the COL in Boise, it would seem that counties should set the rate according to the COL in their area.

I would also require employers to carry health insurance. Here is where the federal government could offer Medicare coverage for employers to purchase so that they aren't at the mercy of the insurance and HMO industry if their premiums are too unreasonable.

Does this make sense? I know there are those who are going to come along and say the cost would make prices go up. That simply isn't true. Recently there have been studies of Wal-Mart and Costco. Both stores have competitive pricing yet Costco pays it's employees well and has good benefits. Wal-Mart doesn't pay their employees well and tells them to get Medicaid and food stamps to make ends meet. Pricing is set by the influence of the market and nothing else.

No wonder Walmart wont touch it :)

It hasn't affected the price of wine or lettuce either. That is usually determined by the market and Mother Nature. I would like to see it extended to all minimum wage jobs. That would give Wal-Mart a hernia, wouldn't it?

The minimum wage should be set federally, and indexed to the same percentage increase that government employees get annually. This gives some protection against municipalities trying to discourage low-income residents from moving in by setting their minimum wage artifically low.

Municipalities should still be able to set a living wage that is above that. Our town just (for the first time) set a living wage standard that companies must meet for their full-time employees if they want to be eligible for city contracts. ($9.58 per hour if they provide health insurance, $12.09 if they don't provide insurance. It works out to 100% of the poverty level for a family of three if they give insurance, or 125% if they don't.)

I wonder why more municipalities and counties aren't doing something like this.

with the particular municipality?

Minimum wage for regular businesses within the municipality are not covered by 'living wage' directives. So, Walmart, MickeyD's et al can still hold to the state minimum wage levels.

The minimum was is long overdue for a change. Congress should be held responsible for not acting on it in the 2006 election.

Kick the bums out. Christ said "What ever you do to those the least of my brethren you do unto me." Those bible beating christians should open it sometime and read it.

Everyone has a duty, I think, to extend a helping hand to those less fortunate. I do believe this should be done through government regulation though in part. Although charity has it's advantages, it's too patchwork in nature to be much help for the working class.

The federal minimum hasn't changed in how many years? (I'm too lazy to google it right now) What has been the increase in the Cost-of-Living during the same period?

I got into a discussion once on these forums about how there should be a 2 tier minimum wage system, one for teenagers and one for adults. It amazed me that people want those who work during the 'after school hours' to be paid less for the same job as those who performed the same duties while school was in session. According to one poster, it didn't matter if the 'after school' employee was actually a student, they should be paid less since it was a job traditionally held by a high school student who was only going to spend the money on video games and cds.

Minimum wage should be increased at the federal level NOW and states and municipalities should have the right to increase it to what they feel is a 'living wage' for everyone who works there (not just those who do business with the municipality).

However, even state regulation isn't enough. In my state minimum wage covers a sliding ruler of meeting the standard of COL. It really has to be more regional.

to ceo pay, & however fast that rises & to the same extent(whatever percentage) so should the minimun wage. I prefer to connect the top & bottom, always.

off the radar in stock options and other under the table benefits, it would probably not be that extraordinary.

It would cause a run-to-the bottom as corporations favor places with lower minumum wages, forcing other places to lower the minimum wage to compete. There must be a national standard on minimum wages and business regulations.

Each region has something they are economically unique on and corporations who are running here and there for lower wage standards will get caught up in their own success. As people move there for the jobs, the COL go up and they eventually will have to pay a reasonable living wage.

Also, have you factored in the corporate businesses that provide service jobs? These are people like McDonalds, Holiday Inns, Arco etc.. Allowing these parasites to skim by on a lower national standard is criminal. They charge the bigger bucks that they can get away with in each region, especially the hotels, so it's time for them to pass it on.

The way of the EU wise.... (think of the complexity of a multinational
government like the EU, not with mere states, but with different
depreciation schedules, whole different languages and histories of
accountancy and value. It's a nightmare, the eu, and the only way
is to trust everyone.... with trust and goodwill, no hurdle is too
large.

I question whether this exists in the system of government with
jurisdiction over the problem. Health and welfare of a loved on
is an intimate jurisdiction... cost is not a concept, only life,
love, indeed, so cost is not a basis really, and cannot be trusted
as the basis of a social accounting.... the free markets rhetoric
discounts what i can't but call the "social elevation", the merit
by which we collectivley aggreee our mutual society is about
beyond trading products.? What is this? And would we to cut loose
all the ties, and nuclear detonate any nation that violates threaty
rights, creating a sort of tense longstanding inevitable cataclysm.

:-) love, santa

Good night. :-)

say there is a problem with deglaciation of yosemite national park?, yes.

This is a global problem, a national problem, a california problem, a
problem for the counties around yosemite, the national parks nationally,
the national parks body western states, or YOSEMITE national park.
There are many rubber bands of government, and the larger the rubber
band, the more people it surrounds, so in a democracy, a rubber band
that aurrounds 300,000,000 people is intensely large. And likely a
government direclty smaller, like "yosemite parks".

So in that metaphor, municipal setting of minimum wages, that the problem
is best realized municipally, in local government, where knowledge of the
"frame" exists... and this be state governmetn, local government....
preferring the smallest jurisdiction with the ability to resolve the
problem... that is the EU way of project design.

From things from the EU to gas pipelines, this be the way, international
project coordination, across jurisdictions, gets harder the larger it is..
and it is easier to act locally, better and preferred, so the eu model
is to empower the local complexity to resolve the government conundrum,
and not to federalize it, or rather, to very carefully, delicately
selectively federalize aspects of the governance best kept with their
natural monopolies....

I'm sorry my lady, i've ranted nonsense, but there was something,
and i'm just on planet zoid this evening... good night indeed
graceful being, may all the graces of goodwill of everyone who
wishes enlightenment come to you.

woof.

I tend to be for it. www.livingwagecampaign.org has a "make your own" page for drafting a living wage ordinance.

For the record, I feel that generally, any law that 'requires' a large area of effect to be effective is probably a bad law. Some of the few exceptions I recognize are environmental laws, standards and measures, interstate transportation, and patents and trademarks. I feel similarly about taxation.

I think that, while the reasons are good, the method of raising wages through increased minimum wage laws is bad.

I tend to oppose concentrating power in the hands of the few - we've seen how easily that is corrupted. I fear that a 'Liberal Rennaissance' might result in lots of 'good' laws being passed at the federal level, eventually being corrupted by the greedy and shortsighted.

To raise wages in any area, no matter how small, demand for labor must increase faster than the supply of labor. There are an incredible number of laws and taxes that reduce the demand for labor:

Most egregious is the payroll tax. The payroll tax raises the cost of employment by 15.3%. This is 'tax wedge' - a wedge between what the producer (employee) receives and the consumer (employer) pays. It generally means that an employee must be 15.3% more productive than he recieves in compensation. Finding another means of raising this revenue would increase employment, probably between 5-20%.

Income taxes against wages have a similar effect. Most people's incomes is based on wages. The first $100,000 or so of income is generally from wages - higher incomes are usually from interest or rent.

Also deleterious are taxes on buildings. Property taxes against buildings increase the cost of a building by 20-40%. This reduces the supply of buildings, used for housing and locating businesses. Conversely, increasing the supply of buildings would 1) increase the number of people employed constructing, securing, cleaning, and maintaining these buildings 2) reduce the cost of starting or expanding a business, generally increasing the demand for employment 3) reduce the cost of housing, leaving more personal income available for consumption - increasing the demand for goods and services.

Sales taxes decrease the amount and value of retail sales - keeping people from being employed in retail, as well as in the production of goods and services.

This generally leaves, as sources of revenue: taxes on land values and other 'user fees' for government services, licenses, and permits. For example, most localities are pretty stingy with their liquor licenses - someone who holds one is protected against competition, allowing that person to enjoy 'extra' income over and above what is due to their personal industry.

Furthermore, taxes on land values have the beneficial effect of decreasing the demand for land as a speculative investment. Removing this demand decreases the cost of purchase, making it easier for potential employers to obtain land - and virtually requiring owners of VALUABLE (i.e. urban) land to use it productively (and therefore virtually requiring them to employ people).

palatable if working people were able to access the Medicare portion and if we took the cap off of the FICA so that the well compensated paid their fair share. As it is now the "wedge" is on the backs of the poorest. If taxed across the board, the percentage taken could probably drop down to 10% once everyone pays their fair share.

Also, SS has been proven to be the backbone of ones retirement. I know. With all this talk about saving for retirement, it doesn't really meet the needs of the retiree, especially the poorly paid retiree. Also, a decent minimum wage would put more money into the coffers. as 15% of $10 is more than 15% of $5.

Other than that with your method I don't see where taxing only land values and fees on government service would cover our needs as a nation. I don't like sales tax, but it does cull a portion of the GNP although again it's a tax gained on the backs of the poor.

There is much the federal government could do to bring in extra revenue, like charging the same rent for grazing on federal lands as private landowners do, sometimes three times what the government charges for those privileges and making the lumber companies pay market prices on the lumber they take from federal lands.

However, talking about other methods of taxation is a moot point with our corrupt government right now. Better that we concentrate on giving each citizens the tools they need to make a better life, like a decent minimum wage and other isseus. Unfortunately, the people of the USA are going to have to do this at a municpal and county level until we get our federal and state governments straightened out.

it keeps them out of work, and keeps labor at a distadvantage - keeping working people (95% of families) from being able to demand higher wages and better working conditions. It keeps them from having an alternative to corporate employment - they could be self-employed.

SS is the backbone of many people's retirements - precisely because people cannot earn the wages they deserve in the first place. Regardless, I'm not advocating getting rid of it, merely paying for it some other way. A decent minimum wage would do nothing but exacerbate the flow of jobs to overseas countries. Build demand, don't fix prices.

You've got the right idea with grazing, lumber, i'd also suggest broadcast rights, mining rights, drilling rights, water rights, certain patents, utility monopoly rights, various licenses, fishing harvests, as well as de facto pollution rights.

As for the value of land value taxes: ever hear of the real estate bubble? What do you think all the land in the US is worth? $60T? How much do you think this would rent for? 5%? How would $3T compare to the federal budget? How much more would land be worth in a town that had no sales tax v. one with a sales tax? How about a payroll tax, or an income tax? Quite a bit more. It's likely that removing $2T worth of harmful tax would likely raise land rents by exactly that much, if not more. Raising enough money would not be a problem.

As for the municipal and county level - I agree, and this is why I suggest a land value tax. Many states grant their localities the right to set property tax rates, including the possibility of setting the land rate higher than the improvements rate. Legislating minimum wages above local minimums only works when there is no alternative for potential employers - and there is almost always an alternative, either the next town, the next state, or the next country. Conversely, there is no alternative for paying for land: potential employers must pay for land no matter where it is, and a land value tax DECREASES the cost to the employer - and shifts the payment from the landowner to the public.

will have to go somewhere else. I personally am in favor of relieving the tax burden on the working poor, but it won't happen until we get Democrats back in power. Warren Buffett suggested to incoming Govenator Ahnold S. of California that property taxes were too low in California, especially for the estate owning and vacation home owning uber rich and that he could solve California's budget problems by reversing the Jarvis ammendment. Arnold responding by firing him and telling him he had to do a bunch of push-ups or something stupid like that.

As far as this statement of yours:



I haven't seen any research that proves this statement. In my historical research, it is busting unions that accomplishes what you said not FICA. In the past strong union shops were able to bring a middle class life to blue collar workers and the manufacturers didn't suffer from it. But in the race for corporate greed, the gates were opened by Republicans for job outsourcing and loss of our jobs here.

What makes you think that you can require employers to pay a certain wage in your municipality rather than relocate somewhere else?

If landowners want to retain the title and exclusive rights to their property, they will pay the tax.

Unions demanding higher wages is roughly equivalent to legislating higher wages - employers simply move somewhere else, or don't expand, or find a machine to do the job.

A 10% raise in employment taxes decreased employment by 4% in Columbia after their SS reform of 1993. Perhaps a 15% reduction could be expected to increase employment by 6% - roughly what the official unemployment numbers are.

Regardless, limiting our proposal to what a municipality could do, shifting existing property taxes from buildings to land values would certainly result in an increase of construction jobs as well as an increase in buildings. An increase in buildings would result in an increase in jobs securing, maintaining, and cleaning buildings. Furthermore, potential employers would be more likely to locate there - real estate costs would be less. I think this final effect would be by far the greatest.

Shifting municipal taxes from sales to land value would increase retail sales jobs.

Shifting municipal taxes from hospitality taxes (hotel room taxes, expensive liquor licenses, etc.) more people will be employed in the hospitality industry.

Increase the demand for employees, and you'll increase wages.

It just so happens I live in a beach/tourist area. Those service jobs you are talking about are 30% filled by working homeless, who live in shelters. As far as I'm concerned the taxpayer is paying for the gap in wages that the hotels and restaurants should be paying so those people can afford to rent a place to live. It's not like they aren't gouging the tourist for profits. A seedy motel room here is $90. That's the bottom and the fancier places a lot more, so they are profiteering on the backs of those helpless to fight for their rights.

I will be proposing an increase to a living minimum wage to our politicos in the future in our local government. Also, in our area, which is also largely agricultural, the field workers have a union (thanks to Cesar Chavez) and are paid $10 an hour and benefits. The cost of your lettuce or your wine hasn't gone up, nor have the vineyards and lettuce fields fled to China for cheaper labor.

So legislation can bring our jobs back, create new ones and pay well enough for a person to live on. It takes the will of the people to do the right thing.

Likely, a lack of potential sites for the hotel.

Or perhaps, all the good sites are already taken by existing hotels. Neat thing about that - a land value tax would make them pay.

You'd wind up with more hotel rooms and more hotel workers.

Direct legislation cannot bring our jobs back. Why is there unemployment in France and Germany?

The undocemented Salvadorean day laborers in and around washington dc get $10 an hour. They are not subject to minimum wage laws.

People buy Bureau of Labor statistics at face value without much critical examination. Through accounting tricks, they under-report unemployment figures. If you want a more realistic number of the unemployment situation in the US, take that number they are saying represents unemployment in the US and roughly double it. That would put us on parity with our European neighbors.

if they can legislate their jobs back?

Just as the notion of perfect competition in capitalism is. It only exists on paper, but the reality diverges with theory many times here. Both France and Germany are ultimately capitalist economies with social programs tacked on. The reason why any for-profit firm exists is to make a profit. That won't be had by maximizing one's production costs by taking on more workers than is absolutely necessary to provide a service or a good. Nevermind the profit mark-up tacked onto the posted price of said product or service to make the whole venture worthwhile.

To be frank, the only way to get unemployment down below 5 percent without using accounting tricks for any length of time is to get rid of the minimum wage entirely and concentrate on increasing aggregate demand for goods and services. That usually involves some amount of wealth redistribution into the hands of those who spend the majority of their paychecks buying food and other necessities to live from those who derive the bulk of their income from dividends on stock, rent, interest, etc. This has historically been done with a progressive income tax scheme.

If demand for goods and services is high enough, the legislated minimum wages would be irrelevant, as they are now.

And, taxing the income recieved from interest (but not rent, economist definitions) reduces the demand for goods and services.

With a solid social safety net, would your rather work for $5/h more or be out of work altogehter? I'd prefer the former, esp. if I had a ready choice of $5/h jobs to choose from.

Regardless, jurisdictions don't generally raise their minimum wages much above the prevailing minimum wage. I'd like to see some 'company town' raise it's minimum wages above what the company was paying. The company would leave, and no one would come to take their place.

Conversely, if a company town raised it's property tax on land to 70% of the rental value, the existing company might leave, but another company would jump in.

there is a choice between no job and a low paying job. Reality doesn't bear this out. If you need two workers, you still need two workers and paying them half of what they should earn isn't going to change that fact.

Although companies try to make their employees do two jobs or even three, it isn't a very good strategy in the long run and they will lose efficiency because of it. If you can't run your business without slave labor, then your management sucks.

I am a retired payroll bookkeeper so in those years I learned a lot about wages. The more successful companies that I worked for also had well paid employees because to run a business successfully you need to seek the markets that will buy your service or product not cut corners where your productivity goes down.

Your employees represent your company and if you have some nose picking slag representing your business because you got her cheaply, she isn't going to represent your business very well. Back when I was in college, minimum wage actually did cover a minimum COL. I never noticed businesses going broke because of it. Other factors contributed to loss of profits, but it wasn't wages. Also, the labor board back then strictly enforced the rules because they hadn't suffered from staff cutbacks either then.

question everything.

It is impossible, with today's real estate, for minimum wage laws to cover COL. Quite simply 3-4 people have to live in a house to pay the rent.

What I'm saying is, if you were living in government housing eating government food and enjoying government healthcare, would you work for $5/h for extra money?

If you need 2 workers and can't afford 2 workers, you're relocating to someplace cheaper or you're going out of business.

I personally think that the best business pracices involve paying your employees well. However, nose picking slags need jobs too, and some jobs benefit less than other from 'empowered and happy' employees.

I'm not a RWer, nor am I a socialist, nor do I believe we can legislate our problems away by allowing the government to set prices or determine production levels.

your argument about keeping wages within the framework of a free market is a RW talking point written about in RW websites like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. Am I not allowed to point this out in the interest of facts? There are certain things that aren't commodities and decent wages and health care are two of them.

The fact is that anyone who is getting government benefits is not going to work for $5 an hour because then it becomes his livlihood not extra money. When you go to work, you lose most of your government benefits if not all of them.

Yes, I agree real estate prices are out of line and the government needs to come in and provide some low cost housing or the means to attain housing like rent control to achieve this.

Frankly, if you can't make your business work in a certain location, then by all means relocate. That doesn't mean some other business won't come along and do what you couldn't do successfully.

And I am a social Democrat that believes Capitalism can work within the framework of social programs that benefit all citizens, so no doubt you and I will find very little to agree on.

I almost always, but not always, disagree with the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. A friend of my used to work for the HF - and I'm one of the few people she won't debate. Keeping wages within the framework of the 'free' market are also the talking points of leftwing websites like www.progress.org www.cesj.org www.earthrights.net

Authoritarian command economy supporters aren't the only people who put people first.

Social Safety net v. welfare. The point I was making did not involve a trade-off, though I recognize it usually does in real life. One more reason that I think that we should move away from means-tested welfare ONCE we have established near zero unemployment. I support a universal basic income grant or citizen's dividend. (One way to do this, not the optimum way, but one way, would be to tax everyone's income at 33% and give everyone $16,667 a year)

Government provided housing is hardly ever a solution, it generally allows local employers a low skill labor pool, and keeps housing out of reach of the people just above the means limit. The failure of our 'free' market in housing is due to the fact that land doesn't follow the same market rules as buildings or other capital. No matter what the going price is, no one will increase the production of land. You want affordable housing - read this article from the new colonist

If you cannot afford the cost of living in an area, by all means, relocate. I agree with you on this, but think that we should at least make the 'game' as fair as possible. I just happen to think that we can do it in a fairly decentralized, non authoritarian manner.

I am a geoclassical liberal that believes that government power needs to be checked whenever possible, lest it fall into the hands of the people who have it now, more or less the world over.

Ordinarily I do to and I theoretically would prefer a strong centralized government. However, considering that our central government is a shambles of profiteering and corruption, my proposals are to try to make things work at a local level until we can clean house in Washington. Then we should be able to pull workable programs and government together into something strong and centralized that will make this country great again.

However, we are going to have to work very hard to gain the respect and trust of the rest of the world as well.

and I object to a strong centralized power - for the very reasons you currently do. The difference is that I think it is impossible to keep the house clean - power corrupts as it were.

I prefer local government to central government because it is more accountable, less remote, less anonymous. If it's bad, you can easily move.

But these very qualities mean that a legislated minimum wage would generally be ineffective at providing good wages. And I support good wages.

Which brings me to the other means of raising wages, namely by removing taxes from them and their products, and by taxing land and license. These would be effective even if limited to one municipality.

A city with a tax on road frontage will wind up with lots of narrow lots - See Charleston, SC. A city with a wage tax will wind up with low wages and employment - See Philadelphia, PA. A city with a large sales tax will wind up with few stores - see any Kentucky town close to the border. A city with a high tax on land WONT wind up with any less land.

In fact, such a tax would be an incentive for owners to develop that land to it's highest and best use, employing people in the process.

I'll throw it out. I have wondered if separating the wage/salary from the income in income tax would make things more equitable. By income I mean anything that the IRS taxes other than wages/salary, you know rents, interest, dividends, that kind of income. I also feel that anyone who makes more than a million a year in salary and/or wages should pay income taxes.

However, since part of my retirement income is interest, this would unfairly tax the elderly who are already living on low monthly income. So I'm back to the drawing board on this one and haven't really done much research on it as to how it works in other places. There is always an example that has been tried either historically or globally that one can look up to see how it worked out.

I will never back down from the need for a legally spelled out minimum wage. I have known too many entrepreneurs in my life who will pay a kid or an illegal pitiful recompensation for their labor if they accept it. These bozos just won't do the right thing so they need to be told what to do.

and for the record, I wouldn't throw out the income tax just yet anyway. I'd also tax incomes on well under $1,000,000.

I also wouldn't get rid of minimum wage laws, I just don' think they're effective at substantially raising wages. I do think they serve the purpose you mention well, as long as they are set at or very near what the 'natural' minimum wage is.

Ah, retired people, the wrench in the cogs.

For someone still working, a shift of taxes off of wages and onto rents would be quite beneficial - but for retired people, adapting to the new rules would be difficult. In reality, I don't think it would be that difficult, as the shift would occur in one of two ways:

gradually, as things usually happen in a democracy, over time, such that you'd probably never notice it in your lifetime.

Or fast, due to serious circumstances, in which case your investments might be worthless anyway. I think that retired people would be protected anyway, just for political expediency.

Increasing taxes on rents should increase returns to wages and capital, so if your investments are in capital rather than licenses and titles, you'd come out ahead.

For the next generation it wouldn't be a problem: they'd have been able to save more of their wages, and they would have invested in capital rather than land. Nicely, their investments in capital would further raise the demand for labor (to build the capital) as well as increase it's productivity (if nothing else, increasing land values - and therefore government revenue).

I do feel that, once other 'harmful' taxes are shifted to land value, the taxes on land and license should continue to increase. The surplus should be used to fund a universal dividend. Hence my earlier comparison - if you were receiving $10,000 for just being a citizen, would you not work an easy job for $5/hr for a little extra spending money?

And, in the extreme of full land and license rent collection $10,000 a person is not impossible at all. See, even free market guys like me can be pretty liberal.

A Federal Minimum Wage and it should be raised to at least $7.50

to make ends meet. I notice that many of our service workers are working two jobs as I see them in different places that I shop in and our average wage here is about $7 an hour.

Yet I can drive around in the hills and see the palaces that two people live in, so there is plenty of money in this area to support this and redistribute the wealth a bit.

but if there was not a federal limit it would be a race to the bottom I am afraid. Mississippi would not want to pay more than $4. per hour or Tenn no more than $3.50. There needs to be a standard that no one can go below....and it needs to go up from $5.15 which it now is to at least $7.50 IMO.

Otherwise, right-leaning states would set the minimum wage at $2.00/hr or abolish it altogether.

I think the states should be mandated to set their minimum wage according to what it costs to get a basic apartment and enough food to eat in that state. It would obviously be higher in California than say, Mississippi.

often meet the COL criteria in many areas and I think this should be addressed.