Grafton, NH

Quote: rxwine

Well, someone has to modify the language to make some point or two. Might as well be me!

That's fair. Nah, we don't have anything like that. People come and people go. We give people enough credit that they'll recognize their values/positions are quite different from ours and eventually leave on their own. If they stay, all the better. If you're going to vote for the Libertarian, we don't really care why you're doing it, we're just happy you are.

Quote: Mission146

That's fair. Nah, we don't have anything like that. People come and people go. We give people enough credit that they'll recognize their values/positions are quite different from ours and eventually leave on their own. If they stay, all the better. If you're going to vote for the Libertarian, we don't really care why you're doing it, we're just happy you are.

I'd actually put those "libertarians" in same category as the hippies that tried the full commune values. Try the most ideal extreme version first. Hey, not everyone wants to contribute like we thought. Some people are just relaxing all day. And so on. I think most ideal concepts go through the phase in practice and become something more usable, but still retain some elements.

Quote: Mission146

First of all, employers can already reduce the wages of existing employees, I believe. Not if they're only making Minimum Wage, though.

The way I'd have it work would be similar to the way Social Security works now: The increase (if there was one) would be based on the inflation percentage from the previous year. If there was no increase, or we had a deflationary year, then nothing would change.

What I think would be very likely to happen is that many employers would follow suit, perhaps not for extremely high-paying jobs, but for lower-paid employees. They'd say, "Hey, you guys are good employees and MW is about to go up by 3%, because of inflation. We're already paying you more than Minimum Wage because you're good employees and we wanted to attract and retain you, therefore, we will be also be increasing your wages by 3%, across the board."

So how would your system work differently than the current system, where employers have discretion to increase or decrease ages, provided the employer complies with the MW and other wage laws?

Quote: GenoDRPh

So how would your system work differently than the current system, where employers have discretion to increase or decrease ages, provided the employer complies with the MW and other wage laws?

I thought I made that clear: If the prior year was an inflationary year, then the Federal Minimum Wage would automatically increase by that same percentage. Much of the rest would just kind of solve itself. You certainly wouldn't have people, 'Fighting for $15,' since 2016 when the Federal Minimum Wage hasn't changed AT ALL, since 2009.

Of course, Obama could have done more to increase Minimum Wage or to tie it to inflation, but the Democrats didn't want to. They'd lose how low the Federal MW is as a campaign point, if they did that. Can't have that now, can we?

Let's do a quick little exercise to see what MW would have done, since 2009.

PRESENT SYSTEM

Minimum Wage-2009: $7.25
Minimum Wage-Present: $7.25
Minimum Wage (All Other Years): $7.25

MY SYSTEM

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/inflation-rate-cpi#:~:text=U.S.%20inflation%20rate%20for%202022,a%200.63%25%20decline%20from%202018.

Minimum Wage 2009: $7.25
Minimum Wage 2010: $7.25
Minimum Wage 2011: $7.37
Minimum Wage 2012: $7.60
Minimum Wage 2013: $7.76
Minimum Wage 2014: $7.87
Minimum Wage 2015: $8.00
Minimum Wage 2016: $8.01
Minimum Wage 2017: $8.11
Minimum Wage 2018: $8.28
Minimum Wage 2019: $8.48
Minimum Wage 2020: $8.63
Minimum Wage 2021: $8.74
Minimum Wage 2022: $9.15
Minimum Wage 2023: $9.88

NOTES:

1.) The first thing is that I would have three years of fixed graduated rate increases to start with. Based on the current environment, I'd want to set the end of three-year target somewhere between $12-$13, which is significantly higher than I think we can expect the Government to do now, if they do anything at all.

2.) The second thing is nothing would prohibit the Federal Government (if they voted to do so) from giving it a fixed amount boost, if appropriate. The idea behind indexing it to inflation is just so it's not sitting there doing absolutely nothing for fifteen years.

*If you have a Minimum Wage where literally nobody is getting paid that little, then it should go up because there is no longer a point to that minimum wage amount. The idea of minimum wage is simply to set a baseline, so very few people should actually be making Federal Minimum Wage, but a non-zero number of people should be, or it's too low because it's no longer actually doing anything.

3.) I would assume that states and lesser jurisdictions would also be inclined to adopt the indexed-to-inflation thing, as might some individual employers, of their own accord.

Quote: rxwine

I'd actually put those "libertarians" in same category as the hippies that tried the full commune values. Try the most ideal extreme version first. Hey, not everyone wants to contribute like we thought. Some people are just relaxing all day. And so on. I think most ideal concepts go through the phase in practice and become something more usable, but still retain some elements.

I'd almost want to call those people Anarchist Utopianists, if the second were a word. That really doesn't describe most of us; there must be some form of Government. While I generally favor non-aggression and non-intervention policies, there's going to be a terrible day of reckoning for us if we don't have a well-financed military, for example.

You didn't answer the question. So, no, you didn't make it clear. Again, how would your policy change current practice for employers who already pay above MW?

And I note that, aside from your conspiratorial rant, all opposite to increasing MW comes from the right side of the aisle.

That being said, if you want to increase the MW and index it to inflation so that it never decreases in cases of deflation, you'll get no argument from me. You'll need to convince the GOP.

Quote: GenoDRPh

You didn't answer the question. So, no, you didn't make it clear. Again, how would your policy change current practice for employers who already pay above MW?

And I note that, aside from your conspiratorial rant, all opposite to increasing MW comes from the right side of the aisle.

That being said, if you want to increase the MW and index it to inflation so that it never decreases in cases of deflation, you'll get no argument from me. You'll need to convince the GOP.

It's not a conspiratorial rant; this is why I'm generally uninterested in talking to blind shills, though I'm not saying you are one. Obama had an overwhelming majority in the House and Senate and managed to get ObamaCare through, which I think was a LOT more controversial than an increase to the FEDMW (provided a prior inflationary year) would have been. I suspect that's also the same reason that the Legislature didn't do anything to Federally codify choice, wanted to preserve the campaign point...though, in Obama's/Congress' defense, I don't think they thought the SCOTUS would ever overturn Roe.

In any event, they either simply forgot that they could do something that would influence MW for years to come, or they simply didn't want to. Perhaps you think it's more likely that they simply forgot; that's fine. Even I would give Nancy Pelosi, for one, more credit than that, but you believe what you want.

My policy wouldn't force any sort of change for employers who already pay above Minimum Wage. I think many employers would increase the wages by the percentage increase to Federal Minimum Wage of their own accord. Obviously, if they were paying more than Minimum Wage and then Minimum Wage exceeded what they were paying, as a result of an inflationary period the prior year, then the employers would have to increase it.

Naturally, the current system also doesn't impact those companies who are paying more than Federal (or lesser jurisdiction) Minimum Wage, either. If you were paying $7.26 in 2009 (absent lesser jurisdiction increases), then you could still be paying that now. Not in my system, though.

Cool, well, I guess we have no argument. The way I would write it, there is no possible set of circumstances that could cause Minimum Wage to ever decrease. In theory, there could be a new bill that supersedes that (in the event of total economic collapse, more broadly), but no, a deflationary year would not cause a reduction.

Quote: Mission146

It's not a conspiratorial rant; this is why I'm generally uninterested in talking to blind shills, though I'm not saying you are one. Obama had an overwhelming majority in the House and Senate and managed to get ObamaCare through, which I think was a LOT more controversial than an increase to the FEDMW (provided a prior inflationary year) would have been. I suspect that's also the same reason that the Legislature didn't do anything to Federally codify choice, wanted to preserve the campaign point...though, in Obama's/Congress' defense, I don't think they thought the SCOTUS would ever overturn Roe.

So everything is Obama's fault?

If it was possible to increase the min wage or codify choice, the Dems would have and should have. But they've never had filibuster proof majorities long enough to do so.

Quote: Mission146

Cool, well, I guess we have no argument. The way I would write it, there is no possible set of circumstances that could cause Minimum Wage to ever decrease. In theory, there could be a new bill that supersedes that (in the event of total economic collapse, more broadly), but no, a deflationary year would not cause a reduction.

Just curious, why wouldn't MW decrease if there was deflation? I like the concept of indexing it to inflation/deflation.

Quote: GenoDRPh

So everything is Obama's fault?

If it was possible to increase the min wage or codify choice, the Dems would have and should have. But they've never had filibuster proof majorities long enough to do so.

I don't think it's his fault, necessarily. I don't know who to assign blame to or how much to assign. The Democrats, with an insurmountable majority, collectively, did not do it. That's all. It's certainly not exclusively Obama's fault because he can't put the bill on his own desk to either sign or veto.

I don't think they'd have needed filibuster-proof majorities. If you want to know the truth, I think the problem with my idea (for the Democrats) is that Republicans would have mostly agreed to it. Do you really want to be seen as the party objecting to, what, an average annual increase to Federal Minimum Wage of 1-3%? It would have helped the American people, but not the Democratic Party, because anything even close to a moderate Republican would have been on board with it.