Current Events > "In 1935, the minimum hourly wage in the U.S. was set at 25¢.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Tie wages to inflation we always get inflation fuck these anti living wage people

Proto_Spark posted...

I mean, by 2020 standards, minimum wage today doesn't go as far as it did in the 1950s. That's pretty gross.

The important context to this is that a lot of people actually worked for minimum wage back then, which isn't true today.

A flat federal minimum wage is useless when cost of living varies drastically by state and even within states. 15 bux an hr won't do shit for workers in san fransisco, but could really fuck up a small business in Hicksville, Nowhere

---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

The important context to this is that a lot of people actually worked for minimum wage back then, which isn't true today.

Well, yeah. But wouldn't you also need to compare the share of workers currently earning less than the inflation-adjusted minimum to make a fair comparison? If the minimum wage now is much lower than it was before after adjusting for inflation, it doesn't say much to compare the share earning the prevailing federal minimum

---

Sackgurl posted...

itp: "it's not about whether i make more, it's about whether someone else makes less than me so i know that i'm better than they are"

His point is still correct. The middle guy is fucked over which you dont give a shit about.

The person already making 13/hour should be over joyed they now make the same wage as their coworker who made 7.25.

The person already making 17/hour should be over joyed they now make only $2 to $ 4 above minimum wage now! They should be happy their hard work to get where they currently are now is devalued!

t5yvxc posted...

His point is still correct. The middle guy is fucked over.

How is that? People near the minimum wage benefit from higher minimum wages.

---

Balrog0 posted...

How is that? People near the minimum wage benefit from higher minimum wages.

The person already making 13/hour should be over joyed they now make the same wage as their coworker who made 7.25?

The person already making 17/hour should be over joyed they now make only $2 to $ 4 above minimum wage now? They should be happy their hard work to get where they currently are now is devalued!

The people making $8 or $13 or $16 right now won't be seeing the same level of increase. Their wages will be devalued, and yes these people are struggling too. Also yes, many of these people worked hard to get those couple extra dollars an hour above minimum wage.

The current plan fucks the middle guy over.

The idea of raising wages with inflation I support. Raises that rise a set percentile until you reach a certain income at the very least. Like idk 100k (arbitrarily chose that number). People here acting like folks making 1 to 20 dollars above minimum wage sleep comfortably naked in money or something.

DoubleDare posted...

I would say it should be $10.

Now for areas like California, NYC, Philly and even NJ I could see $15.
But states where the cost of living is alot lower? I would think $10, $12 at most would be fine.

And sorry but jobs like McDonalds and other fast food places, their employment model is literally 18-early 20s working there for 2, 3 years tops with high turnaround.

And yet there are peoe who work there long into adulthood as their career. Just because it's suppose to be a stepping stone first job doesn't mean it will.

---

t5yvxc posted...

The person already making 13/hour should be over joyed they now make the same wage as their coworker who made 7.25.

They would be happy they're making more money than they were before?

t5yvxc posted...

The person already making 17/hour should be over joyed they now make only $2 to $ 4 above minimum wage now! They should be happy their hard work to get where they currently are now is devalued!

Like I said, generally speaking people near minimum wage will see increases because employers will respond to the new minimum wage by offering higher wages specifically because they are perceived as more valuable.

t5yvxc posted...

The people making $8 or $13 or $16 right now won't be seeing the same level of increase.

True.

t5yvxc posted...

Their wages will be devalued

In what way?

t5yvxc posted...

Also yes, many of these people worked hard to get those couple extra dollars an hour above minimum wage.

And they still benefit from that hard work

---

t5yvxc posted...

People here acting like folks making 1 to 20 dollars above minimum wage sleep comfortably naked in money or something.

Are you delusional? Who is acting like that?

---

Balrog0 posted...

They would be happy they're making more money than they were before? Like I said, generally speaking people near minimum wage will see increases because employers will respond to the new minimum wage by offering higher wages specifically because they are perceived as more valuable.

Wholeheartedly incorrect. Yes the 14.5/hour worker would be happy to see a $2 to $5 raise, but still unhappy their position was devalued. Employers are absolutely not going to give him a 106% raise ($29.87/hour) like his 7.25/hour co-workers. Instead of making nearly double of what the minimum wage is, they will more likely make roughly 20% to 75% above it now. Meaning their salary has been devalued. No one is overjoyed when their salary is devalued with the rebuttal of, "be happy you got anything."

Balrog0 posted...

And they still benefit from that hard work

Objectively incorrect unless they receive a 106% raise as well. They won't. People making $8 or $13 or $16 or $20 are not all going to see a 106% increase to their wages.

The idea that employers are going to bump the 16 an hour guy to $32.96/hour literally ignores what companies have consistently done even now to offset employee wages.

Balrog0 posted...

Who is acting like that?

We literally have folks in this topic not caring about anyone making over 7.25. Either falsely pretending everyone will see a 106% increase (7.25 to 15 is a 106% increase) or straight up acting as if the people already making over 7.25 should be grateful they get any raise at all no matter how little. So yes, they are acting like that, especially the latter which is saying who cares their old salary was devalued.

Balrog0 posted...

Are you delusional? Who is acting like that?

The anti capitalist people in this topic with hard-ons to destroy the middle class with their "me, me" selfish rhetoric. I agree with the states dealing with it... i can see NYC and similar doing $20 an hour, but in Texas? $10 is fine. I pay mine $15 an hour already, and they live just fine... but what am I supposed to do when minimum is $15? I can't afford $20+ an hour, because like t5 stated: their labor just got devalued and I have to get rid of an employee and double work the ones remaining to afford $20, which I'm sure they'll ask from me.

---

t5yvxc posted...

Wholeheartedly incorrect. Yes the 14.5/hour worker would be happy to see a $2 to $5 raise, but still unhappy their position was devalued. Employers are absolutely not going to give him a 106% raise ($29.87/hour) like his 7.25/hour co-workers. Instead of making nearly double of what the minimum wage is, they will more likely make roughly 20% to 75% above it now. Meaning their salary has been devalued. No one is overjoyed when their salary is devalued with the rebuttal of, "be happy you got anything."

How is it devalued? They are making more money. It might be true that people are resentful, but explain how they're actually harmed.

t5yvxc posted...

Objectively incorrect unless they receive a 106% raise as well. They won't. People making $8 or $13 or $16 or $20 are not all going to see a 106% increase to their wages.

The idea that employers are going to bump the 16 an hour guy to $32.96/hour literally ignores what companies have consistently done even now to offset employee wages.

No, they'll still make more than they did before, though, and more than minimum wage workers.

t5yvxc posted...

We literally have folks in this topic not caring about anyone making over 7.25. Either falsely pretending everyone will see a 106% increase (7.25 to 15 is a 106% increase) or straight up acting as if the people already making over 7.25 should be grateful they get any raise at all no matter how little. So yes, they are acting like that, especially the latter which is saying who cares their old salary was devalued.

You're not making any sense.

kinetika_ posted...

The anti capitalist people in this topic with hard-ons to destroy the middle class with their "me, me" selfish rhetoric. I agree with the states dealing with it... i can see NYC and similar doing $20 an hour, but in Texas? $10 is fine. I pay mine $15 an hour already, and they live just fine... but what am I supposed to do when minimum is $15? I can't afford $20+ an hour, because like t5 stated: their labor just got devalued and I have to get rid of an employee and double work the ones remaining to afford $20, which I'm sure they'll ask from me.

Are you that dude's alt? Their labor is devalued so you can't afford them? You're not making a coherent argument.

---

You could buy a brand new house with four acres for less than $1,000.

So many ways to approach this topic and it's hard to say what will work in the real world.

I'm on the conservative side and I do my own light duty landscaping mini-biz making $20 an hour and even I'll agree that $7 an hour is ridiculous, you basically need two jobs to make it. There's no reason for someone to not live a reasonable comfortable life if they're willing to work 40 hours a week. So I'm definitely in favor of a living wage.

The problem is if we bump it to 15 is the price of everything going to double from hyper-inflation? That's a problem and not fair to people already making more per hour and to people with large savings. Even if the price of everything goes up only 25% that's pretty rough.

As stated, it depends on the state. $15 an hour won't do shit if you live in cali with $2500+ a month rent. But you'll be living relatively good out here in the country like I do where I can buy a nice 3 ace property for $20,000 and put a 1200 sqft prebuilt on it for $35,000.

This is not my area of expertise so I'm not sure what will work without huge inflation. If we can make it work with maybe 10% inflation or something I'd be much in favor of an increase, because nobody should have to slave away for 80 hours a week to survive.

@Balrog0

How is it devalued? They are making more money. It might be true that people are resentful, but explain how they're actually harmed.

Basic math....
Person X makes 7.25. Wages pumped to 15 is a 106% increase.

Person Y makes 21. Literally anything less than approx 43.26 an hour means their job has been now devalued.

---

@Balrog0

How is it devalued? They are making more money. It might be true that people are resentful, but explain how they're actually harmed.

No, you are either ignorant to the math or just don't care about people already making over the fed minimum wage.

What you are saying is literally objectively false and vastly over simplifies the wage increase of anyone already making over the federal minimum wage. Proportional math is literally a thing. Just because 2 people see a $5 raise doesnt mean the raise was equal to their overall salaries proportionally.

I'll use a dividend of 5 to keep this simple. Let's pretend min wage was $5, and the law raised it to $10. So let me be clear, the federal minimum wage in this scenario raised by 100%.

Person X formerly made $5/hour, thanks to the wage increase, they now make $10/hour. Their wage was increased 100%.

Person Z already made $10/hour. They already made 100% above minimum wage. So when federal min was raised to $10/hour, they had to rely on their employer to make sure they still made 100% above minimum wage which SHOULD be $20/hour. The employer instead raises their wage to $15/hour. Person Z saw a 50% increase in their wage.

This is basic math, person Z's job was devalued by 50%. Instead of being paid 100% above minimum wage like before, they are now paid 50% above minimum wage. Meaning their salary loss market value, not gained.

---

A good video to watch to help you understand

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUh1G9ugzBA


---

you keep saying devalued but its only devalued in this specific way you keep talking about it
your purchasing power goes up, not down, so what you're talking about is arbitrary

---

^I see math wasn't your subject.....
Like seriously.....

I blame our schools not teaching things like economics and inflation.

It's not strictly a math problem. Items don't cost a percent of the prevailing minimum wage, and they also don't come proportional to your wages.

---

Dude I make $17 an hour and if we raised minimum wage to $15 an hour and I got bumped to like $20 an hour because of it I wouldn't give a fuck at all and would be thrilled that people are making a livable wage now and because of that I ended up making a bit more as well.

---

Balrog0 posted...

It's not strictly a math problem. Items don't cost a percent of the prevailing minimum wage, and they also don't come proportional to your wages.

...I dont even know where to begin with how ignorant this post is.

The math actually does matter when it comes to economics and you are literally all kinds of wrong in so many areas...
I mean some have already addressed a few areas like inflation and the market value of jobs going up or down, which the math actually matter when speaking of the value of someone's job lol.

Your over simplification of the matter really shows here that you likely don't even fully understand inflation if at all.

I mean if you were like poster 73 who is saying he/she doesn't care/mind/whatever we could be having a different discussion. However your doubling down on the math on the value of a job, which is just wrong.

When minimum wage went up back then, my wage did not go up.

(I was above min wage at the time.)


---

asdf8562 posted...

...I dont even know where to begin with how ignorant this post is.

The math actually does matter when it comes to economics and you are literally all kinds of wrong in so many areas...
I mean some have already addressed a few areas like inflation and the market value of jobs going up or down, which the math actually matter when speaking of the value of someone's job lol.

Your over simplification of the matter really shows here that you likely don't even fully understand inflation if at all.

I mean if you were like poster 73 who is saying he/she doesn't care/mind/whatever we could be having a different discussion. However your doubling down on the math on the value of a job, which is just wrong.

You're the one oversimplifying things. Like I said already, making a certain percentage of the minimum wage or the prevailing wage isn't what's meaningful. What's meaningful is what you can get with your money. The research is pretty clear that low wage workers, including those making above the minimum wage, benefit based on that standard.

Would you like me to show you some of the best research in the area? I would be happy to share it with you.

MI4 REAL posted...

When minimum wage went up back then, my wage did not go up.

(I was above min wage at the time.)

It's the overall net effect for low wage workers, but that sucks for you. I know my mom got a wage increase even though she made over the minimum wage at Walmart. And I made minimum wage at McDonald's when it went up, my income went up too. What a good year for a low income household

---

Balrog0 posted...

You're the one oversimplifying things. Like I said already, making a certain percentage of the minimum wage or the prevailing wage isn't what's meaningful. What's meaningful is what you can get with your money. The research is pretty clear that low wage workers, including those making above the minimum wage, benefit based on that standard.

Would you like me to show you some of the best research in the area? I would be happy to share it with you.

It's the overall net effect for low wage workers, but that sucks for you. I know my mom got a wage increase even though she made over the minimum wage at Walmart. And I made minimum wage at McDonald's when it went up, my income went up too. What a good year for a low income household

Oh no, this is a long time ago. I make much more than that now.

---

Sweet, me too

---

Demon1050 posted...

The problem is if we bump it to 15 is the price of everything going to double from hyper-inflation?

no, because inflation is a result of changes to the money supply and lending from central banks--not to the cost of labor. so now you can rest easy because someone told you that the answer to your question was no! what's that, you're still worried, because someone else told you the answer to your question was yes?

anyone who tries to tell you that raising the minimum wage definitively causes inflation is lying.

someone else gaining wealth is not devaluing your own because in the modern market economy, someone else is always gaining wealth faster than you, and either in (population) numbers or wealth quantity great enough to be of equal comparative consequence. as i can tell you've already stopped reading my post i'll just quickly note that that consequence value is zero.

and since folks are posting random youtube nonsense i'll just go ahead and post sourced research from the bureau of labor which none of you will read except balrog0 because he probably has to cite it for his job already anyway.

inflation is cyclical and tends not to link up very well with the growth of labor costs. the reason for this is that most shit you're buying is not tied to the cost of domestic labor, but of global labor. US companies' costs might be labor-driven, but US companies sell their products around the globe.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/cwc/the-relationship-between-labor-costs-and-inflation-a-cyclical-viewpoint.pdf

the folks who are concerned about unemployment rates have a better argument, but one would think they'd have been saying in the pre-covid era--when it was at an all time low--"hey, this would be a great time to raise the minimum wage!" and yet, when we had those conditions, crickets. as we recover from COVID we will bounce back and see unemployment numbers again drop to low levels. and it is for that environment that folks pushing for higher minimum wages are preparing.

---

MI4 REAL posted...

Hey guess what?

UK workers at McDonalds get 1 month paid vacation.

How much do we get in America?

Nothing.

Mcdonalds is open 365.50 days a year.

I worked for then for a long time.

To top it off they usually dont get breaks and work 6 days a week


---

Balrog0 posted...

You're the one oversimplifying things. Like I said already, making a certain percentage of the minimum wage or the prevailing wage isn't what's meaningful. What's meaningful is what you can get with your money. The research is pretty clear that low wage workers, including those making above the minimum wage, benefit based on that standard.

Would you like me to show you some of the best research in the area? I would be happy to share it with you.

You show you dont know what are talking about with each post.

Math doesn't lie.

FantasticAssGas posted...

Raising the minwage means having to pay someone more for the same value they give to the business.

That's not feasible.

Oooh no. Billionaires can't get another private plane because millions of people want to be able to just live comfortably without stress making them feel trapped inside their lives :(. If you're not a billionaire yourself, you're just stepping on your own toes. Nobody wants your broke ass money. The people you champion are the ones that want it to come from you instead of them.

---

Balrog0 posted...

You're the one oversimplifying things. Like I said already, making a certain percentage of the minimum wage or the prevailing wage isn't what's meaningful. What's meaningful is what you can get with your money. The research is pretty clear that low wage workers, including those making above the minimum wage, benefit based on that standard.

Would you like me to show you some of the best research in the area? I would be happy to share it with you.

You show you dont know what are talking about with each post. Going to websites that promote raising the minimum wage doesn't change the math on the current salary value of one's job today and its value after the finalized wage increase.

Even your terrible argument isn't mathematically sound. 1500/month in bills to someone who makes 1000/month has a different affect on a second individual who makes 1500/month. The cost of bills affects the lower income worker more.

Your argument that everyone benefits equally or that salaries of jobs were not devalued for individuals who do not see the same exact percentage of a wage increase is mathematically false. It just is.

Your argument tries to falsely argue for example you can give one person making 7 an hour, an 8 dollar raise. While the 2nd person making 15 an hour getting a 3 dollar raise means both parties benefited equally since they both got "something." That's mathematically not true.

Piggybacking off the already argument used earlier.
Your argument falsely tries to argue Person X's $5 raised to $10 wage, and Person Z's whos wage goes from 10 to 15 is an equal raise. You incorrectly argue that the latter didn't see their job become less valuable. This is mathematically incorrect. You cant word your way out of the math, you can only delude yourself, or try to argue feelings to distract from the fact that Person Zs job is valued 50% less.

Person Z formerly made 2 times more than than Person X, when the gap was 5 and 10. Now the gap is 10 and 15 which means Person Z now makes 1.5 more than Person X. Your argument that Person Zs job didn't become less in value is literally mathematically false.

You are promoting this kumbaya argument to offset mathematically, peoples job values will factually see less value if they do not see the same exact percentile increase in their wage.

Your argument would be entirely different if you were saying you don't care about the gap closing between Person X and Z. However you are trying to spin the math when you are mathematically just plain wrong. Person Z in that scenario had the value of their job decrease when the gap between someone who made less closed by any percentage.

There's literally nothing you can show that changes the math that the gap between the workers has closed some and someone job has became less valuable. Instead of Person Z making double the minimum wage, they now make less than double. You only have just kumbaya talk, andor I dont give a shit talk that tap dances around the math on Person Zs salary valued less than what it used to be which was formerly 2 time above minimum wage, now only 1.5 times more.

I just find it bizarre how many people think the role of the government is to prop up and basically defend the worst practices that come from capitalism rather than being a check on them.

The whole goal of capitalism, by its nature, is to fuck over employees as much as possible. You have a fiduciary responsibility to attempt to make as much profit as you legally can. By law you have to be proactive in making decisions that are best for business, at least if you are publicly traded.

If the government is not going to be enforcing laws that help to balance out capitalist necessities by enacting things like a liveable minimum wage, WTF is the point?

Why is it OK for the government to step in on anti-trust but not to help employees? It makes no sense to me how people can feel this way. Unless you are so ignorant as to think the free market corrects every negative consequence of capitalism, government needs to step in. This is one of those cases.

Unless these companies want to just suddenly stop making money, they will follow the law and run the business, taking less of a profit. And if you truly believe in capitalism, a company that cannot survive such a change was doomed to failure anyways.

---

Sackgurl posted...

i wonder why op quoted the section he did from the article and not this part

jk i dont wonder

Everyone who works should make a living wage. Not that hard.

---

BlingBling22947 posted...

Everyone who works should make a living wage. Not that hard.

---

There wont be any work when more companies start to automate and lay off employees to make up for the $15. Unless they do what Mr. Bucket did in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and become an automation technician for the toothpaste cap screwing machines. ( )

---

VTBM posted...

There wont be any work when more companies start to automate and lay off employees to make up for the $15. Unless they do what Mr. Bucket did in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and become an automation technician for the toothpaste cap screwing machines. ( )

They are already hiring temps to circumenvent rights previously granted before.


---

MI4 REAL posted...

Hey guess what?

UK workers at McDonalds get 1 month paid vacation.

How much do we get in America?

Nothing.

Mcdonalds is open 365.50 days a year.

I worked for then for a long time.

Its mandatory for all companies in the UK to give 25 vacation days to their employees. I don't get your point.

---

Siaperaz posted...

Its mandatory for all companies in the UK to give 25 vacation days to their employees. I don't get your point.

I think the point has already presented itself.

---