What is special about that number, is there are particular study or statistic involved?
I figured it was because they liked the idea of more than doubling the current minimum wage.
When adjusted for inflation, federal minimum wage in 1968 was $12.I think that is setting the floor on what is acceptable.
True for fewer than half the states whose minimum don’t exceed the federal mandate.
Regarding why everyone is doing the same, "Fight for 15"started in New York before spreading across the country. Certainly a lot easier to keep everyone fighting for the same amount than changing in every state you go to.
Thanks, that gives a starting data point. It looks like in 2012 the minimum wage was $7.25, which yes, could be a rounded doubling, but nothing definite from what I can see. But then this was NYC-based, which had a higher minimum wage, and I’m having trouble finding what it was at that time.
A history of the minimum wage in New York state is given here:
The minimum wage in New York City has been higher and increased to $15 at the start of 2019 for firms with more than a few non-tipped employees.
[Moderating]
While you’uns are doing an admirable job of keeping your answers so far appropriate for GQ, I think that this question is by its nature better suited for GD. Moving.
My assumption was that at $15 they could negotiate down.
If you start at $15, maybe you could compromise at $12. Whereas if you demand $12 and someone else says no, where do you go? You negotiate down to $10. Its better to start from a higher position and negotiate downward.
Also $15 is a good minimum wage, but a wage of something higher like $20 starts to make people uncomfortable because then it feels ‘too’ high. I’m guessing they focus grouped it and found $15 was a wage that didn’t cause resistance but was about the highest they could get (its halfway between $10/hr and $20/hr).
This is all personal opinion, probably unrelated to the real reasons.
The US poverty line is ~$12.50/hour for a nuclear family, over $5 more than the current federal minimum; $15/hour lifts someone working full time above the poverty line, something most proponents of a raise consider essential.
Maybe it goes without saying, but I should add that, after meeting certain thresholds and criteria, it’s just a good, simple number that’s easy to use in a simple measage about wage, in a way that $16.42 or $14.79 would not be.
I guess people can debate it now, but I want to be clear that I don’t really have a desire to debate the merits of a raise or not. I only am asking why $15 specifically and not $14 or $16 or $13. Yes, it’s a nice even number, which may be the reason why the movement in NYC started, and everyone else is just piggybacking on that.
And we ended up with a negotiated down result here in Oregon. A somewhat complex one too, what with three different geographic minimums and different graduated increases for each region. And we don’t actually make it to $15, although the Portland region gets to $14.something at the end. After that, the annual cost-of-living increases will resume, though, so it’ll get there in a year or two.
Then I will respect your desire for factual responses. Although mine is a guess.
If the movement started in NYC, the MIT Living Wage* for a single adult living alone and working 1 FTE is currently just shy of $16. My guess is that it was closer to $15 when the movement started. I don’t see historical rates on their site.
The merits of their calculations can be debated (in both directions), as can the wisdom of raising to that target, but that’s not what we’ve been asked. They may not have used the MIT math either, but something similar.
I have my own opinions on the MW but I’ll save them for another thread.
Nah, you can discuss opinions now if it is ultimately in GD. My position is basically agnostic, I see merits in both positions.
My assumption was that, even if the MW was raised to $15, it would take years to ramp up to that, and in a few years $15 would be closer to where it “should be”, (in cost-of-living/inflation terms).
IIRC, they don’t just say “It’s $15 now.” They say "On Whatevertember 31, 2019 the minimum wage will be raised to $9.50. On Whatevertember 31, 2020 the minimum wage will be raised to $11.75. On Whatevertember 31, 2021, it will be raised to $14…
ETA: It’s like leading your target: you don’t aim for where it is now. You aim for where it’s going to be when it finally hits.
The real answer is, “They pulled it out of their ass.” There are no economic theories or empirical evidence that $15 is the ‘right’ number, or even that there IS a ‘right’ number other than whatever prevailing wages are already set by the market. Minimum wages are a form of price control, and they are among the more destructive ways an economy can be messed with as they destroy information about supply and demand.
For that matter, it’s ridiculous to have a national minimum wage, because the cost of living varies dramatically around the country. $15/hr in San Fransisco gets you a tent if you can find a place to pitch it. $15/hr in rural Texas or Louisiana is a whole other thing. This is one area where states should be setting their own minimums if they want them. A national minimum wage is crazy.
Bullshit. A national minimum wage is only a bad idea if the individual states are taking effective action and already setting a minimum that meets the goal of the national: moving people with full time employment above the poverty line relative to the cost of living in that state. That isn’t happening, and likely won’t. Despite the purported low cost of living in Louisiana, nearly 20% of the population falls below the poverty line.
The five US states with the highest poverty levels are Arkansas ($9.25), Kentucky ($7.25), Mississippi (No State Minimum), Louisiana ($7.25), and New Mexico ($7.50).
And the so-called impact on the consumer is also bullshit. Prices can’t simply be raised on a whim - people will stop buying the product, or buy less of it, when the price exceeds the value they place on it.
The real impact of higher employee wages is reduced profits for the wealthy, and that’s why the concept meets so much resistance. And those reduced profits are voluntary - the rise in payroll for entry-level employees could easily be offset by reducing executive salaries and/or bonuses.
Could I get a cite for this specific claim - that a rise in MW can generally be offset by reductions in executive salaries and bonuses? Especially in instances like franchises and small businesses. TIA.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m not sure there is a cite- because I’m not so sure the claim applies to “franchises and small businesses”. Because the claim wasn’t just that the rise in MW could be offset by reductions in executive salaried/bonuses - it was that “reduced profits” are voluntary, that is a company could either reduce profits to offset a rise in the minimum wage or reduce executive salaries and bonuses.
And the reason I say the claim wouldn't apply to franchises and other small businesses is because the owners/executives are generally the same people and profits/executive salaries and bonuses are simply different characterizations of money going to the same people. I know someone who used to complain constantly that his business didn't show a profit. He was paying well over $1M a year in salary to himself, his wife , his two minor children and his mother ( who were all "vice presidents) , although only he actually worked in the business.* Either didn't understand or didn't accept that his "profit" was going to the salaries for the no- show jobs.
So if my local McDonald's has to pay an extra million dollars a year because MW is now $15, it doesn't really matter if the $1M comes out of the profits ( which are split between the hypothetical four owners) or from the salaries the four are paying themselves. If my dry cleaner needs to pay an extra $14K to the counter help, it's costing him and only him, whether it's reduced profit or if he reduces his own salary.It's a different situation with corporations which have stockholders who aren't also "executives" - it that case, you can reduce profits without affecting the executives and reduce executive pay without affecting the stockholders directly.
- I am not sure about his reasons for this - I assume taxes. And I also assume it was at least shady, if not outright illegal.