Democrat Senate Candidate Barbara Lee Pitches $50 Minimum Wage: ‘Just Do The Math!’

[Valletta]

The federal minimum wage is currently set at $7.25 an hour, though a number of states have set their own requirements. In California, the minimum wage rate is currently set at $16 an hour, though it is slightly higher for fast food and healthcare workers.

Democrat Senate Candidate Barbara Lee Pitches $50 Minimum Wage: ‘Just Do The Math!’

U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) argued in favor of raising the federal minimum wage to fifty dollars an hour during Monday night’s California Senate debate. Lee is currently one of three California House Democrats who is seeking to fill the late Diane Feinstein’s seat in November, the others being...

trendingpoliticsnews.com

Who said Democrats were not doing anything to fix the economy?

 

[Larniavc]

How can people survive on $7.25?!?!

 

[Paulos23]

With the current market, who can survive on $16/hr? In California?

We need to raise the minimum wage, but $50/hr? Are things that expensive in California?

Oh, my neighbor who moved from California informs me it is. Wow....

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The federal minimum wage is currently set at $7.25 an hour, though a number of states have set their own requirements. In California, the minimum wage rate is currently set at $16 an hour, though it is slightly higher for fast food and healthcare workers.

Democrat Senate Candidate Barbara Lee Pitches $50 Minimum Wage: ‘Just Do The Math!’

U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) argued in favor of raising the federal minimum wage to fifty dollars an hour during Monday night’s California Senate debate. Lee is currently one of three California House Democrats who is seeking to fill the late Diane Feinstein’s seat in November, the others being...

trendingpoliticsnews.com

Who said Democrats were not doing anything to fix the economy?

I'm thinking that it's not the economy that needs to be fixed. It's the social matrix we currently have and live by in the U.S.

... if that's what we want to call it.

 

[iluvatar5150]

How can people survive on $7.25?!?!

They can't.

 

[Soyeong]

Employers need to earn a profit in order to stay in business which means that that they need to find employees who produce greater value than their expenses, which includes what they pay their employees among a number of other things. So someone needs to produce over $50/hour in value in order to be able to afford to pay that much. The problem is that many people are not capable of producing that much value, so making it illegal for those people to find jobs by raising the minimum wage to $50/hour is not good for the economy. There are many jobs that employers need being done that don’t produce over $50/hour in value, so making it illegal for to provide those jobs and for employees to choose to do those jobs for less than that is also not good for the economy. A $50/hour minimum wage would cause businesses to jack up their prices in order to afford to pay their employees that much, so it is a lot less appealing when the cost of living skyrockets to compensate consumers compensate, which is also not good for the economy.

If someone needs more than $7.25/hour to survive, then they need more to find a job where they produce more than that. If businesses can’t find employees who are willing to work for $7.25, then they need to increase wages until they are able to find employees who are willing to work for that amount or else they will go out of business. If an employer reaches they can’t afford to continue to raise wages over the value that a job produces and they can’t find anyone to do that job, then they will go out of business. This regulates itself, so there is no need to damage the economy by raising the minimum wage.

 

[durangodawood]

How can people survive on $7.25?!?!

Employers prefer that government steps in to fill the gap between wages earned and cost of living - which it does partly.

 

[Larniavc]

The problem is that many people are not capable of producing that much value, so making it illegal for those people to find jobs by raising the minimum wage to $50/hour is not good for the economy.

That is a silly take. When you say the economy what you mean is slightly less good for the business owner.

If the product of the employee’s efforts are worth less than the value of a living wage then workers are under no obligation to subsidise the employer. The employer is free to go out of business and the employee can devote their efforts to a better employer.

If employers make poor business decisions so as to be unable to cover their overheads it’s their fault for being either feckless or incompetent. The employee is under no obligation to prop up employers who have chosen to make poor business decisions.

There will always be businesses and the why should a working person be held responsible for bad business’s poor life choices?

If the employer tries to pass the cost on the consumer they will price themselves out of the market and go out of business. Market forces will ensure that happens.

 

[essentialsaltes]

She's a distant fourth behind Schiff, Porter and Steve Garvey. This is a desperate bid for attention.

 

[Bradskii]

If an employer reaches they can’t afford to continue to raise wages over the value that a job produces and they can’t find anyone to do that job, then they will go out of business. This regulates itself, so there is no need to damage the economy by raising the minimum wage.

Just...what?

If a company can make a profit paying their workers $15 an hour but they can legally pay them as little as $7.50 an hour, thereby increasing their profits, what do you honestly think they are going to do?

 

[Soyeong]

Just...what?

If a company can make a profit paying their workers $15 an hour but they can legally pay them as little as $7.50 an hour, thereby increasing their profits, what do you honestly think they are going to do?

There is nothing wrong with a company wanting to find someone who will do the same job for the least amount, and if they can find someone who is willing to do it for $7.50/hour, then there should be nothing preventing either party from entering into this mutually beneficial relationship. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with someone wanting to find a company that will pay them to the most to do the same job, and if they can find a company that is willing to pay them $100/hour to do the same job, then there should be nothing preventing them from entering into that mutually beneficial relationship. However, if a company is unwilling to pay more than $7.50/hour for someone to do a job, then it is unlikely that they will find people who would be willing to do that, so they they will need to increase their wages in order to find enough employees who are willing to do the job, which is why many companies have entry level positions that are above the minimum wage even though they are legally permitted to pay them less. So it is self-regulating where companies need to pay competitive wages in order to stay in business that is in the middle of people looking to work for companies that will pay them the most for the same job and companies looking for employees who will do the same job for the least.

 

[Gene2memE]

Federal minimum wage at time of enacting, adjusted for inflation (year end 2023):

1938: $5.40
1939: $6.48
1945: $6.77
1950: $9.48
1956: $11.20
1961: $11.72
1963: $12.45
1967: $12.77
1968: $14.01
1974: $12.36
1975: $11.89
1976: $12.32
1978: $12.38
1979: $12.17
1980: $11.46
1981: $11.23
1991: $9.91
1996: $9.22
1997: $9.78
2007: $8.60
2008: $9.27
2009: $10.30

1938-2009 average federal minimum wage: $10.51 (in 2023 US dollars)
Post WW2 average federal minimum wage: $11.19
30 year (1994-2023) average federal minimum wage: $9.36

Highest federal minimum wage: $14.01 in 1968
Lowest federal minimum wage: $5.40 in 1938

Longest period without an increase: 5,315 days (and counting). No increase in the federal minimum wage for 14 years and six months.
Second longest period without an increase: 3,613 days (Sept 1st 1997 to July 24 2007).

There's a solid argument economic argument that the minimum wage should be raised to somewhere in the range of $10 to $12 per hour.

There's also a very good argument that it should be regularly indexed to inflation - say every 18 months or so. The purchasing power of the minimum wage has eroded by about 30% since it was last raised.

 

[iluvatar5150]

So it is self-regulating where companies need to pay competitive wages in order to stay in business that is in the middle of people looking to work for companies that will pay them the most for the same job and companies looking for employees who will do the same job for the least.

The problem with that model is that the equilibrium point for low skilled jobs is often below the level of what it costs to provide the labor to perform those jobs. By that, I mean people will accept wages less than what is required to get themselves back and forth to work every day and to keep themselves healthy enough to keep working. In those cases, their wages have to be subsidized by something, often taxes.

 

[BCP1928]

There is nothing wrong with a company wanting to find someone who will do the same job for the least amount, and if they can find someone who is willing to do it for $7.50/hour, then there should be nothing preventing either party from entering into this mutually beneficial relationship. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with someone wanting to find a company that will pay them to the most to do the same job, and if they can find a company that is willing to pay them $100/hour to do the same job, then there should be nothing preventing them from entering into that mutually beneficial relationship. However, if a company is unwilling to pay more than $7.50/hour for someone to do a job, then it is unlikely that they will find people who would be willing to do that, so they they will need to increase their wages in order to find enough employees who are willing to do the job, which is why many companies have entry level positions that are above the minimum wage even though they are legally permitted to pay them less. So it is self-regulating where companies need to pay competitive wages in order to stay in business that is in the middle of people looking to work for companies that will pay them the most for the same job and companies looking for employees who will do the same job for the least.

That is certainly a classic. Kind of like the Laffer Curve, which looks good sketched on a cocktail napkin but nowhere else. The chief problem with it is that it assumes a free market in labor which for most workers does not exist.

 

[Bradskii]

There is nothing wrong with a company wanting to find someone who will do the same job for the least amount, and if they can find someone who is willing to do it for $7.50/hour, then there should be nothing preventing either party from entering into this mutually beneficial relationship.

This is incredibly naive. $7.50 is not a living wage. If a company can't exist unless it pays it's workers a risible hourly rate on which you can't live then it doesn't deserve to be in business. Period.

From here: Despite pledges, only 1 of 22 major companies paid workers a living wage, report finds

'Although a living wage varies regionally according to the local costs of living, Brookings pegs the national average at $17.70 an hour, or just under $37,000 per year.

Home Depot increased stockholders' wealth by $149 billion, and Lowe's by $70 billion (but their) typical worker's annual income, which last year was just $24,500'.

You think that's acceptable?

 

[iluvatar5150]

That is certainly a classic. Kind of like the Laffer Curve, which looks good sketched on a cocktail napkin but nowhere else. The chief problem with it is that it assumes a free market in labor which for most workers does not exist.

The general interpretation of the curve also has us being on the right side (where higher taxes brings less revenue) rather than the left (where higher taxes brings more revenue).

 

[JSRG]

How can people survive on $7.25?!?!

There are relatively few jobs that actually pay that low; even the stereotypical "low pay" jobs pay better than that (due to inflation, there's functionally little difference between a $1/hour minimum wage and a $7.25/hour minimum wage). If someone's actually working for minimum wage, it's normally someone who's at a part time job while in school or something like that.

For the record, people in third world countries are able to--even if only barely--survive on things like $2 a day. But that's obviously going to be a lot harder in something like the US where the prices tend to be higher. That said, if you're working full time of 40 hours, it's hardly impossible to survive on $7.25/hour. It's not pleasant or easy, but it's doable.

 

[Bradskii]

There are relatively few jobs that actually pay that low; even the stereotypical "low pay" jobs pay better than that (due to inflation, there's functionally little difference between a $1/hour minimum wage and a $7.25/hour minimum wage). If someone's actually working for minimum wage, it's normally someone who's at a part time job while in school or something like that.

For the record, people in third world countries are able to--even if only barely--survive on things like $2 a day. But that's obviously going to be a lot harder in something like the US where the prices tend to be higher. That said, if you're working full time of 40 hours, it's hardly impossible to survive on $7.25/hour. It's not pleasant or easy, but it's doable.

But we're not talking about basic survival. You don't need any money to survive. Just sleep on a park bench and dumpster dive for food. I don't know about you but I don't think that living in a society where a significant percentage of people are barely surviving is a good thing.

 

[BCP1928]

There are relatively few jobs that actually pay that low; even the stereotypical "low pay" jobs pay better than that (due to inflation, there's functionally little difference between a $1/hour minimum wage and a $7.25/hour minimum wage). If someone's actually working for minimum wage, it's normally someone who's at a part time job while in school or something like that.

For the record, people in third world countries are able to--even if only barely--survive on things like $2 a day. But that's obviously going to be a lot harder in something like the US where the prices tend to be higher. That said, if you're working full time of 40 hours, it's hardly impossible to survive on $7.25/hour. It's not pleasant or easy, but it's doable.

It may be doable, but is it necessary?