Minimum wage is not enough to live on. But is an across the board minimum wage increase standard across the country the best solution?
Or should there be a mandated schedule that ties local minimum wages to calculated living wages for the region?
The advantage of a mandated living wage over a one size fits all minimum wage is that rural districts with lower costs of living can maintain a lower wage structure that both is enough to live of off in the area and is low enough that any concerns regarding pressures against hiring more workers or driving industries away are mollified. It would also index on a regular basis.
Sure, use a cost of living adjustment to a standard living wage. It doesn’t need to have that much variation, some places will be more economical than others for minimum wage employees. Let state and local governments take their own steps to offset the local cost of living or to set their own minimum above the federal minimum as they do now.
Of course the people are wrong. All the time. However, in this case, since what you are advocating would cause company stores, and people paid in scrip, I’d say you’re wrong.
The 19th century sucked. Trying to recreate the work environment from there is the definition of goofy.
Word. The minimum wage that helps poor people the most is no minimum wage at all.
Certain liberals are constantly telling us Americans to imitate Scandinavia in our domestic policy, since the Scandinavian countries have supposedly reached the ideal state of shared prosperity and equality. Those liberals would probably be surprised if they looked up the minimum wage in Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland. There isn’t one.
Switzerland and Austria also have no minimum wage. All seven of those countries have very low poverty rates. A high minimum wage tends to strand people in poverty, because it prevents them from getting jobs. Abolishing minimum wage helps the poor by making it easy for them to get jobs.
Neither. Eradicate the minimum wage entirely and make sure that welfare benefits are sufficient to have a modest existence on while strongly encouraging one to work.
Employers are not responsible for peoples inability to manage their own lives or increase their economic value.
Absolutely incorrect. The fact that even Wal-Mart has to raise wages offered to attract workers proves that supply and demand, econ 101, does in fact work with labor.
So supply and demand didn’t exist in the 19th century?
By the way, Wal-Mart as recent as 2008 tried to pay Mexican workers in company vouchers. So no, they’ll fucking do it the day they can get away with it.
I think you might have included that context.
As an aside, none of those countries have endemic generational poverty and our currently very low social mobility.