# Why are most minimum wage proposals in the US $15? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 2, 2019, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-most-minimum-wage-proposals-in-the-us-15/838092 "2019-08-02T22:14:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2019, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-most-minimum-wage-proposals-in-the-us-15/838092/61 "2019-08-09T15:42:39Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Actually, your scheme is worse than a UBI because corporations would be incentivized to pay as little as possible. The workers wouldn’t care if they were getting $1 or $9.99 per hour, because the government would make them whole, at $10/hour. With a UBI, at least, workers would get more benefit from employers who paid more (I’m not advocating for a UBI). So, Walmart would pay $0.01/hour and the government would pay the rest. A better alternative would be a negative income tax. Have a goal income of say, $20K, everyone gets their (20k - salary) \*50%. Thus people who don’t work would get $10K, and those who make $10K would get an extra $5K from the government. This would mean that every worker would still have incentive to make as much money as possible in the labor force. ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2019, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-most-minimum-wage-proposals-in-the-us-15/838092/62 "2019-08-09T15:44:28Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Let’s assume that it is true that this demand side economic model will work (I don’t believe it will, but lets assume it will). Why does it take the form of a minimum wage and not a social program by the government? > > If it is a societal good, it should be provided by the taxpayers, not solely by business owners whether they be large or small, rich or poor, or on the verge of bankruptcy themselves. > > I’m with kayaker. The small businesses that we want to promote get screwed over and over again by government red tape and increasing rules and taxes. The analysis by government needs to encompass 1) if the minimum wage will bring a full time worker over the poverty line, and 2) if the aggregate productivity of minimum wage workers is substantially higher than their cost. My opinion is that a minimum wage shouldn’t be a device to ensure ever higher wages. It should ensure that someone with a full time job is not impoverished. However, it needs to be adjusted in times of relative prosperity. If a large proportion of minimum wage workers are struggling to be profitable, that’s not a good time to raise the minimum wage. As for why the employers should pay for the wage increase, they’re the ones benefiting from the labour. Why should a business that is choosing to pay its employees a living wage be forced to subsidise a business that’s choosing to pay its employees the lowest wages possible? As to your other point, I agree that there should be a lower minimum wage for some classes of workers including teenagers, apprentices and people on work-assistance programs. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2019, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-most-minimum-wage-proposals-in-the-us-15/838092/63 "2019-08-09T15:52:29Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Seems to me that the best way to go about this whole thing isn’t to grandstand and throw fits about raising the minimum wage, and thereby getting into all the political/philosophical/economic debates about living wages, minimum wages, etc… > > Rather, gradually redefine the poverty line such that it reflects what the living wage ought to be, then use that as a lever to readjust the minimum wage. As mentioned above, most people who are earning minimum wage are not poor. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2019, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-most-minimum-wage-proposals-in-the-us-15/838092/64 "2019-08-09T15:59:12Z")
It appears to be a proposal to redefine what poor means. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2019, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-most-minimum-wage-proposals-in-the-us-15/838092/65 "2019-08-09T16:18:50Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > It appears to be a proposal to redefine what poor means. Exactly. As I perceive it, one of the biggest components of resistance to a higher minimum wage is confusion and misconceptions about the definitions and relationships between poverty, the poverty line, minimum wage and what a living wage would be. A lot of relatively uninformed people will assume that since minimum wage \> poverty line, that’s \*prima facie \*evidence that it’s a living wage of some kind- they’re not poor, so what’s the problem? Why do they need more for a “living wage”? If the poverty definition/line was redefined, that would allow for better arguing that a higher minimum is needed- ideally you’d align the poverty line and minimum wage together with whatever the living wage would be. But the first step, IMO is that you’d have to redefine poverty- that’s a lighter lift than changing the minimum wage in a vacuum. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2019, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-most-minimum-wage-proposals-in-the-us-15/838092/66 "2019-08-09T16:55:10Z")
> [@bump](#): > > A lot of relatively uninformed people will assume that since minimum wage \> poverty line It is for one person. For a household of 8, it’s \>$20/h for one FTE. That’s kind of my point; poverty is a function of income _and_ household composition, so by targeting wages we will not get the additional income to where it is needed the most. Any “living wage” functions the same way re: household composition. There is no wage that lifts anyone and everyone above whichever threshold we choose to use. They can reduce the number of households (with earners) that are under the threshold. But keep in mind that one goal of early progressives in enacting a minimum wage was to prevent undesirables from getting jobs in the first place. While we haven’t seen any major harm from modest increases, a living wage (per the MIT calculator) for an adult (1 FTE) with three kids in ~NYC is north of $50/h. If the desire is to get people above a threshold, whatever that is, then target people below the threshold. MW doesn’t do this. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2019, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-most-minimum-wage-proposals-in-the-us-15/838092/67 "2019-08-09T17:46:42Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > A better alternative would be a negative income tax. Have a goal income of say, $20K, everyone gets their (20k - salary) \*50%. Thus people who don’t work would get $10K, and those who make $10K would get an extra $5K from the government. This would mean that every worker would still have incentive to make as much money as possible in the labor force. I can’t tell if this is something you’re advocating – this version is definitely a UBI proposal. Maybe the extra money should come from state coffers instead of federal coffers, right? Because states with higher minimum wages are already paying more than their share to states with lower minimum wages. If the corporations aren’t going to pay a higher minimum wage, why does it skip the states and go right to the feds? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2019, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-most-minimum-wage-proposals-in-the-us-15/838092/68 "2019-08-09T18:43:48Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Is this some kind of modified universal basic income? > > The higher cost of living states are usually also the ones with higher minimum wages and also the ones that pay more to the feds than they get back. So, the low-skilled Alabama worker working for $4/hour will get the other $6 (or whatever) from NY, NJ, CT, or CA. Meanwhile, those states are also making sure to pay for their own with higher minimum wages and higher local taxes. Why should Alabama or West Virginia, for example, become even more dependent on transfers from richer states? This would just be another transfer from rich states to poor states, and another subsidy to corporations who can still attract employees even though they don’t pay a living wage. No, I am not proposing any particular plan. Any plan must make sure that there are not extreme unintended consequences. My only point was that by eliminating jobs that cannot be financially justified at a minimum wage, the government is increasing poverty. If you are opposed to transfers from richer states to poorer states, then you should oppose all federal social programs and leave those to the states. Welcome to limited government! ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2019, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-most-minimum-wage-proposals-in-the-us-15/838092/69 "2019-08-09T18:50:07Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > No, I am not proposing any particular plan. Any plan must make sure that there are not extreme unintended consequences. My only point was that by eliminating jobs that cannot be financially justified at a minimum wage, the government is increasing poverty. > > If you are opposed to transfers from richer states to poorer states, then you should oppose all federal social programs and leave those to the states. Welcome to limited government! Do you see in color or just in black and white? Care to address the other problem with the proposal that I mentioned? I just wish the taker states would pull themselves up by their bootstraps, increase their taxes, and do a better job of taking care of their people, rather than lazily relying on NY, NJ, CT, MA, and CA to take care of their people for them. Since MS, MO, AR, WV, etc., refuse to do their fair share, I guess we have to step in. ---
**Author:** ![epbrown01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ba0ec/32.png) [@epbrown01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/epbrown01)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2019, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-most-minimum-wage-proposals-in-the-us-15/838092/70 "2019-08-10T19:18:42Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > A person has to make $30,000 a year to be above the poverty line? That doesn’t seem right. A person has to make $30k/year to support a family of four, is the model. Which means a single-parent household is not automatically thrown into poverty, or crippled by child-care costs like now, and that a two-parent household would actually have a chance to get ahead rather than just get by, or could have one at-home parent when the kids are young. You know, something that was economically feasible 50 years ago, but apparently defies the laws of physics now (when executive salaries were double-digit multiples of employee salaries, rather than triple/quadruple digit multiples). Payroll costs haven’t changed - how we divvy it up has. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2019, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-most-minimum-wage-proposals-in-the-us-15/838092/71 "2019-08-10T23:33:40Z")
> [@epbrown01](#): > > A person has to make $30k/year to support a family of four, is the model. Which means a single-parent household is not automatically thrown into poverty, or crippled by child-care costs like now, and that a two-parent household would actually have a chance to get ahead rather than just get by, or could have one at-home parent when the kids are young. > > You know, something that was economically feasible 50 years ago, but apparently defies the laws of physics now (when executive salaries were double-digit multiples of employee salaries, rather than triple/quadruple digit multiples). Payroll costs haven’t changed - how we divvy it up has. The HHS poverty guideline and Census poverty threshold for a family of four are both under $26k. Median personal income is over $31k, which is higher than it’s ever been (after inflation, obviously.) There’s some persistent myth that people used to be able to “get by” but cannot today. It’s fantasy. The percentage of multi-earner has been \* decreasing\* over my lifetime. I don’t have census data back to 1969, but the rate is certainly lower today than it was in 1980 (Census Table H-12). Again, people who worked full time over the previous year who are living in poverty was 2.7% of the workforce in 2017. If you want to address poverty, then address poverty. Raising the minimum wage is a piss poor way to do this. Unless you don’t actually care about poverty and are just trying to stick it to employers or executives or something. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2019, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-most-minimum-wage-proposals-in-the-us-15/838092/72 "2019-08-11T00:03:12Z")
It’s entirely possible to live like the 1950’s today. If you want just one parent to work, all you have to do is accept that you will live in a 900 sq ft house with no air conditioning. Cut all your communications except for a phone and basic cable. You can have one 26" color Tv, which would be better than what the rich in 1950. No flying for you. Middle class people didn’t fly in the 1950’s. Your vacations will generally involve camping, or if you are very lucky, a road trip to Disneyland. You can have one car, without air conditioning or power anything. The most basic crappy car you can buy today will be much better than what they had in the 1960’s. So buy the cheapest car you can - preferably a few years old already. As for health care, just don’t go to the doctor very much. Refuse to pay for CAT scans and other advanced diagnostic equipment. They didn’t have that in the 1950’s either. Basically, if you can’t be diagnosed by a doctor with a blood pressure cuff and a stethoscope, you are out of luck. If you have kids, they need to work in their teens. Paper routes, McDonald’s etc. Give them a small allowance, and they have to earn and save for whatever else they want. And no day care, no after school care, no expensive hobbies. You can pay for swim lessons and maybe some basic sporting goods like a baseball mitt and a ball. Your kid can have a cheap 3-speed bike. No fancy mountain bikes. And it goes without saying that you will be eating a lot of cheap home-cooked meals. Restaurant meals were for special occasions. Do all that, and you too can live on one middle-class salary. And if you would rather have your cell phone, computers, 2000 sq foot house, flying vacations, multiple cars, three or four TV’s, lots of takeout food, and all the other trappings of life in a wealthier society, maybe stop and think about it all before you blame the rich, defiance of the laws of physics, or some other shadowy cabal for the need to have two salaries. ---
**Author:** ![epbrown01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ba0ec/32.png) [@epbrown01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/epbrown01)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2019, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-most-minimum-wage-proposals-in-the-us-15/838092/73 "2019-08-12T02:07:12Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Do all that, and you too can live on one middle-class salary. And if you would rather have your cell phone, computers, 2000 sq foot house, flying vacations, multiple cars, three or four TV’s, lots of takeout food, and all the other trappings of life in a wealthier society, maybe stop and think about it all before you blame the rich, defiance of the laws of physics, or some other shadowy cabal for the need to have two salaries. You’re basically saying that a working-class salary could support a working-class lifestyle in the 1950s with all the trappings of a wealthy society for its time, but can’t support the modern-day equivalent and shouldn’t be expected to. Rationally, shouldn’t incomes keep up with the rising cost of living? A chief argument of proponents of increasing the minimum wage (in general, not the $15/hour figure) is that it’s lower than it was in the 1950s and 1960s, adjusted for inflation (afi).The 1955 equivalent was $9.35, and the 1968 equivalent was $11.76. Simply adjusting for inflation from the 2009-set amount of $7.25 would put it at $8.66 now; in comparison, CEO compensation has doubled since 2009, from $6MM to $12MM on average in 2017 for an S&P 500 company. This is on average nearly 400 times the salary of an entry-level employee; in the 1950s a CEO made 20 times an employee on average. Now, what I’ve yet to hear is a sensible explanation for why this growing disparity is considered normal, let alone acceptable. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2019, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-most-minimum-wage-proposals-in-the-us-15/838092/74 "2019-08-12T10:27:26Z")
Other people getting even richer doesn’t make me worse off. That’s why it’s acceptable. Standard of living is so much better than in 19XX. Although if you’re going to about to thinking otherwise, we could all use a good chuckle. ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2019, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-most-minimum-wage-proposals-in-the-us-15/838092/75 "2019-08-12T17:02:58Z")
> [@epbrown01](#): > > Now, what I’ve yet to hear is a sensible explanation for why this growing disparity is considered normal, let alone acceptable. Why do you feel it merits explanation? One doesn’t have anything to do with the other. If you take, for example, the CEO of Ford’s salary into every employee, you’re at under $90 per year per employee, and that’s leaving no salary for the CEO. Big, freaking deal. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2019, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-most-minimum-wage-proposals-in-the-us-15/838092/76 "2019-08-12T18:35:58Z")
> [@epbrown01](#): > > You’re basically saying that a working-class salary could support a working-class lifestyle in the 1950s with all the trappings of a wealthy society for its time, but can’t support the modern-day equivalent and shouldn’t be expected to. Rationally, shouldn’t incomes keep up with the rising cost of living? WADR “the rising cost of living” is not exactly the same as “rising expectations”. “All the trappings” includes lots of things in 2019 that simply weren’t available in 1959, or nobody thought they were the default. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Rucksinator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/898d66/32.png) [@Rucksinator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rucksinator)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2019, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-most-minimum-wage-proposals-in-the-us-15/838092/77 "2019-08-13T14:52:50Z")
> [@epbrown01](#): > > A person has to make $30k/year to support a family of four, is the model… So McDonald’s has to pay its entry-level highschool employees enough to support a family of 4? Why is this the baseline? At the risk of sounding cruel, I’d say that you shouldn’t have a spouse and two children until after you’ve worked your way up to making more than the minimum. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2019, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-most-minimum-wage-proposals-in-the-us-15/838092/78 "2019-08-13T19:10:30Z")
> [@Rucksinator](#): > > So McDonald’s has to pay its entry-level highschool employees enough to support a family of 4? Why is this the baseline? At the risk of sounding cruel, I’d say that you shouldn’t have a spouse and two children until after you’ve worked your way up to making more than the minimum. Technically you shouldn’t have three children until after you’ve worked your way up - if your spouse also works full time at MW you are over the $30K mark. Well over, in states where the MW is higher than the federal MW. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2019, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-most-minimum-wage-proposals-in-the-us-15/838092/79 "2019-08-13T19:15:48Z")
> [@Rucksinator](#): > > So McDonald’s has to pay its entry-level highschool employees enough to support a family of 4? Why is this the baseline? At the risk of sounding cruel, I’d say that you shouldn’t have a spouse and two children until after you’ve worked your way up to making more than the minimum. Yeah, that’s great. What about people such as myself and my spouse who went from a six-digit income household to nada around 2007 - we did everything right and I had to start at the bottom again. Or weren’t you aware of the concept of “falling on hard times”? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2019, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-most-minimum-wage-proposals-in-the-us-15/838092/80 "2019-08-13T20:36:11Z")
That kind of doesn’t answer the question - why should you and your spouse be paid enough to support a family of four? Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-most-minimum-wage-proposals-in-the-us-15/838092.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-most-minimum-wage-proposals-in-the-us-15/838092.md?page=5)