Fetterman on backing $15 minimum wage: 'That's a hill I would die on'

[Kushinator]

SS retirement benefits are based on past wages earned.

Past wages earned up to a certain threshold.

Changing the method for establishing current wages without regard to its impact on current pension benefits is foolish.

What is the link? Personally, i think you're just throwing shit at the wall hoping it sticks, because you weren't aware of the incremental scale that's built into the legislation. You are more than welcome to make your case.

One does not become “more retired” if mandated increased labor costs drive up the prices of most US goods/services, but they become less able to afford to live with those price increases.

S.S. benefits are subject to cost of living adjustment (COLA). Furthermore, you're not following the research when it comes to the relationship between the MW and inflation. If i were to make such a claim, i would be certain to base it on the data and necessary analysis. I am however aware of the research.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Past wages earned up to a certain threshold.



What is the link? Personally, i think you're just throwing shit at the wall hoping it sticks, because you weren't aware of the incremental scale that's built into the legislation. You are more than welcome to make your case.



S.S. benefits are subject to cost of living adjustment (COLA). Furthermore, you're not following the research when it comes to the relationship between the MW and inflation. If i were to make such a claim, i would be certain to base it on the data and necessary analysis. I am however aware of the research.

You are ignoring my point entirely. This started with you quoting MW adjustment based on CPI inflation, quickly morphed into MW adjustment based on a average (or median) wage levels and you are now apparently back to using CPI inflation.

The trick of using average wage level changes to drive MW level changes ignores the fact that increasing the MW ripples upward at least as far as average (or median) wage levels.

The relationship between entry level wage increases and increases in wages for those above entry level is not some abstract theory - it is the basis used for attracting and retaining qualified labor. Those now making 3X the MW are not suddenly going to become content to make 2X the MW.

Nobody has explained why more than doubling the federal MW in 4 years is not going to hurt those relying on SS (or other fixed) pension benefits which are very unlikely to get anywhere close to an equal COLA adjustment. The average SS retirement benefit ($18K/year) is now about $3K/year above the federal MW FTE. Changing that situation to make the average SS retirement benefit be (at least) $10K/year below the federal MW FTE is bound to hurt those living on SS (or other) pension incomes.

 

[Kushinator]

You are ignoring my point entirely.

What point? That the MW of 1968, adjusted for inflation, is higher than the MW would be in 2021 if the legislation that will bring the MW to $15/hr by 2025 is to pass? If so... then you you have no point.

This started with you quoting MW adjustment based on CPI inflation, quickly morphed into MW adjustment based on a average (or median) wage levels and you are now apparently back to using CPI inflation.

What was the point of siting the 1968 CPI adjusted figure? It wasn't until i informed you of the legislation that you suddenly had an issue with indexing the MW to wages.

The trick of using average wage level changes to drive MW level changes ignores the fact that increasing the MW ripples upward at least as far as average (or median) wage levels.

Wages have largely remained stagnant for more than 3 decades. Why are you opposed to legislation that will increase wages?

The relationship between entry level wage increases and increases in wages for those above entry level is not some abstract theory - it is the basis used for attracting and retaining qualified labor. Those now making 3X the MW are not suddenly going to become content to make 2X the MW.

We are speaking of federal minimum wages. Most states have state mandated MW's that are well above the scheduled increase of the Raise The Wage Act of 2021. Alabama, Deleware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virgina, West Virgina, Wisconsion, and Wyoming have are the states that have a SMW (or none at all) lower than scheduled for 2021 increase under the RTWA, which is scheduled to increase to $9.50.

While i understand the logic where a person earning $9.50/hr in Alabama wanting a raise as well. But why is this a bad thing? Wages have been stagnant for quite some time. Is it really your contention that so many businesses in these states are up against such razor thin margins that they won't be able to handle a wage increase? Get real.... It's my belief we will see better productivity and more consumption as a result.

Nobody has explained why more than doubling the federal MW in 4 years is not going to hurt those relying on SS (or other fixed) pension benefits which are very unlikely to get anywhere close to an equal COLA adjustment.

Now you're just doubling down with complete and utter bullshit. People on S.S. are not suddenly worse off because the minimum wage is increased to $15/hr by 2025. That's probably the most absurd claim in this thread.

The average SS retirement benefit ($18K/year) is now about $3K/year above the federal MW FTE. Changing that situation to make the average SS retirement benefit be (at least) $10K/year below the federal MW FTE is bound to hurt those living on SS (or other) pension incomes.

No it's not... you're talking complete nonsense. If you could reason such a claim is a valid concern, you would have done so already. It's clear that you were not aware of the legislation, tried to make a point regarding the 1968 wage, and got called out. Instead of taking this time to learn more about the legislation, you've doubled down with a most desperate of a response.

 

[Helix]

as i've said many times, i think that it's much more important to guarantee debt free post secondary education and job training. if the entry level wage becomes $15, that's only going to help in the short term. before you know it, 15 bucks will be worth $7.25, and the people making 20 or 25 bucks an hour will take a significant effective pay cut. the solution that i propose is to tie minimum wage to inflation without requiring an act of congress in the future, eliminate the tipped worker exception, and make sure kids (and others) can get trained for jobs or go to college as easily as they can go to high school. that way, entry level jobs would be a stepping stone for most rather than something that people try to live on because they don't have any other viable option.

 

[Kushinator]

as i've said many times, i think that it's much more important to guarantee debt free post secondary education and job training. if the entry level wage becomes $15, that's only going to help in the short term. before you know it, 15 bucks will be worth $7.25, and the people making 20 or 25 bucks an hour will take a significant effective pay cut. the solution that i propose is to tie minimum wage to inflation without requiring an act of congress in the future, eliminate the tipped worker exception, and make sure kids (and others) can get trained for jobs or go to college as easily as they can go to high school. that way, entry level jobs would be a stepping stone for most rather than something that people try to live on because they don't have any other viable option.

The Raise the Wage Act accomplishes much of this.

 

[Helix]

The Raise the Wage Act accomplishes much of this.

does it raise the wages of people who are currently making ten bucks above minimum wage and would be potentially making ~ two bucks above minimum wage if the increase happens? making $17.25 an hour is something that you can sort of live on in some places. if fifteen becomes the floor, it won't be, and i can guarantee you that they will not be getting a proportional raise.

i'm fine with tying it to inflation. that should have been done at the beginning, and there shouldn't have been a server exception. however, minimum wage is always going to become a low wage due to inflation. the most important thing is to help people to make it to the next step, and then the step after that.

 

[Kushinator]

does it raise the wages of people who are currently making ten bucks above minimum wage and would be potentially making ~ two bucks above minimum wage if the increase happens? making $17.25 an hour is something that you can sort of live on in some places. if fifteen becomes the floor, it won't be, and i can guarantee you that they will not be getting a proportional raise.

See for yourself:

 

[ttwtt78640]

What point? That the MW of 1968, adjusted for inflation, is higher than the MW would be in 2021 if the legislation that will bring the MW to $15/hr by 2025 is to pass? If so... then you you have no point.



What was the point of siting the 1968 CPI adjusted figure? It wasn't until i informed you of the legislation that you suddenly had an issue with indexing the MW to wages.



Wages have largely remained stagnant for more than 3 decades. Why are you opposed to legislation that will increase wages?



We are speaking of federal minimum wages. Most states have state mandated MW's that are well above the scheduled increase of the Raise The Wage Act of 2021. Alabama, Deleware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virgina, West Virgina, Wisconsion, and Wyoming have are the states that have a SMW (or none at all) lower than scheduled for 2021 increase under the RTWA, which is scheduled to increase to $9.50.

While i understand the logic where a person earning $9.50/hr in Alabama wanting a raise as well. But why is this a bad thing? Wages have been stagnant for quite some time. Is it really your contention that so many businesses in these states are up against such razor thin margins that they won't be able to handle a wage increase? Get real.... It's my belief we will see better productivity and more consumption as a result.



Now you're just doubling down with complete and utter bullshit. People on S.S. are not suddenly worse off because the minimum wage is increased to $15/hr by 2025. That's probably the most absurd claim in this thread.



No it's not... you're talking complete nonsense. If you could reason such a claim is a valid concern, you would have done so already. It's clear that you were not aware of the legislation, tried to make a point regarding the 1968 wage, and got called out. Instead of taking this time to learn more about the legislation, you've doubled down with a most desperate of a response.

More BS on your part. You have instantly changed the base year for CPI inflation MW adjustment from 1961 (used by the post to which I had initially replied) to 1968 (the historic, inflation adjusted high MW value).

You have apparently dropped your prior claim of using the average (or median) wage as a (the?) valid baseline for the federal MW completely. Why was that done? Could that be because the federal MW in 1968 was not a higher percentage of the average (or median) US hourly wage? Maybe that was because the inflation adjusted average hourly wage increased by only about $1/hour from its high in 1972 to 2009 (the last time the federal MW was adjusted).

My point was simple and concise - while the federal MW would be increase by more than 100% (in 4 years) if this legislation were passed, SS retirement benefits are most definitely not going to be.
The current average SS retirement benefit of $18K/year is the FTE of a wage at $8.65/hour. Trying to argue “fairness” dictates that a full-time McWorker should earn nearly twice the average SS retirement benefit is ridiculous.

If the elderly and/or disabled are expected to live on $18K/year then why not McWorkers? After all, few (currently less than 3%) remain working at the federal MW level, but even fewer (if any) retirees are going to get a raise in excess of the meager, CPI based, COLA.

 

[ttwtt78640]

does it raise the wages of people who are currently making ten bucks above minimum wage and would be potentially making ~ two bucks above minimum wage if the increase happens? making $17.25 an hour is something that you can sort of live on in some places. if fifteen becomes the floor, it won't be, and i can guarantee you that they will not be getting a proportional raise.

i'm fine with tying it to inflation. that should have been done at the beginning, and there shouldn't have been a server exception. however, minimum wage is always going to become a low wage due to inflation. the most important thing is to help people to make it to the next step, and then the step after that.

The clear intent of this proposed law is to make the federal MW much closer to the average wage and then to keep it there.

 

[Kushinator]

More BS on your part. You have instantly changed the base year for CPI inflation MW adjustment from 1961 (used by the post to which I had initially replied) to 1968 (the historic, inflation adjusted high MW value).

Why does this matter? The scheduled MW increase for 2021 in the RTWA is $9.50. I'm not the one who believed any legit MW legislation would instantly raise it to $15/hr.

You have apparently dropped your prior claim of using the average (or median) wage as a (the?) valid baseline for the federal MW completely.

I have no idea what you're talking about. The RTWA tie the minimum wage to the median wage... meaning if the median wage in the U.S. increases by 2% in 2027... so will the minimum wage... without any additional legislation from Congress. Your argument in opposition to this measure is either non-existent or incoherent.

Why was that done?

For the same reason you arbitrarily chose 1961.

My point was simple and concise - while the federal MW would be increase by more than 100% (in 4 years) if this legislation were passed, SS retirement benefits are most definitely not going to be.

That's a meaningless point.

The current average SS retirement benefit of $18K/year is the FTE of a wage at $8.65/hour. Trying to argue “fairness” dictates that a full-time McWorker should earn nearly twice the average SS retirement benefit is ridiculous.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Nobody other than yourself is trying to argue fairness to retirees. Your opinion of what people should earn isn't even an argument.

If the elderly and/or disabled are expected to live on $18K/year then why not McWorkers?

If you want to raise S.S. benefits for retirees, make a thread about it. The only reason we are discussing S.S. recipients is because you've pinned yourself in a corner and are now desperate to deflect away from your ignorance regarding MW legislation.

After all, few (currently less than 3%) remain working at the federal MW level, but even fewer (if any) retirees are going to get a raise in excess of the meager, CPI based, COLA.

Who cares? This is a meaningless comment. Furthermore, the average S.S. recipient doesn't pay income tax on their benefits. The tax threshold is $25k.

Your abandonment of the MW increases cause inflation argument is noted.

Your abandonment of the MW increases hurt retirees is noted. It's all about fairness now huh???

 

[Kushinator]

The clear intent of this proposed law is to make the federal MW much closer to the average wage and then to keep it there.

Is that what you believe?

 

[iguanaman]

Raising the FMW right now is a bad idea.

And the FMW should be canned anyway. Leave MW to states.

We have tried that and that only brings unfair disparities. States can make their minimum wage higher if they want.

 

[Surrealistik]

Fetterman on backing $15 minimum wage: ‘That’s a hill I would die on’

Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, who is running for the Senate, said Wednesday that supporting a $15 per hour federal minimum wage is “a hill I would die on.”Fetterman, who is seeking retiring…

thehill.com

Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, who is running for the Senate, said Wednesday that supporting a $15 per hour federal minimum wage is “a hill I would die on.”

Fetterman, who is seeking retiring Sen. Pat Toomey’s (R-Pa.) seat, told Hill.TV’s “Rising” that he would promote a higher minimum wage as a senator, calling it “a fundamental issue of our time.”

“That’s a hill I would die on,” he said. “It's a lie that has been in our society for generations that you can do anything closely resembling getting by on the minimum wage. It is reprehensible.”
===========================================================
I'm very impressed with my future Senator. But converting his future Senate to buy in to this remains to be seen.

I thought there was a systematic way to adjust the minimum wage. I worked for $1.25/hour in 1961. But a dollar then was worth a lot more than today.

Unfortunately Biden doesn't seem to be very driven on this issue, absurdly claiming that the 15 min wage is unlikely make it through the Senate on a budget reconciliation basis; completely ludicrous as such would have a direct and demonstrable impact on the federal budget (as per the CBO), which is of course the rule for use of budget reconciliation as a legislative vehicle.

Meanwhile, the party and the media have been hands off with respect to the likes of DINOs Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema who appear emboldened by Biden's hedging or have otherwise taken his skepticism as a partial justification for their nakedly ridiculous stance that the $15 min wage is not appropriate for budget conciliation, and their opposition to it thereof; a stance that is not only in direct defiance of the country's preferences at large, but their own constituents, the majority of which support such an increase. This double standard is notable: progressives get regularly chastised for voicing good faith criticisms of the party, its policies and those specifically responsible its shortcomings, bottomless ink spilled charging them with the offense of 'disunity', yet there is scarcely a word of mainstream media criticism with regards to these politicos who openly and shamelessly break with their party's agenda and directly and materially undermine its ability to legislate for the most indefensible and asinine of reasons.

Having said that, trying to pass 15 min wage separately outside of the reconciliation process, as some have tried to soothe the concerns of its proponents with and as Biden floated (also absurdly), is obviously a total fool's errand given hardcore Republican opposition. Manchin and Sinema know this (and frankly, I'm sure Biden does as well, not being a fan of the legislation); the GOP would never agree to such legislation in the numbers required to see it become law, and it wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell.

If Democrats can't get their shit together to pass wildly popular legislation, and keep committing to bait and switch nonsense such as with the $1400 checks after having campaigned on the Georgia Senate races with $2000 ones specifically (no matter how much the Dem party and its media allies may try to gaslight people into thinking they actually meant 1400+600 which is just not the case), we can probably expect to get our asses plowed come mid-terms.

 

[Helix]

See for yourself:

View attachment 67319528

i'm glad to see the tipped wage rise to match the minimum wage. however, my point still stands.

 

[Kushinator]

i'm glad to see the tipped wage rise to match the minimum wage. however, my point still stands.

Incremental increases are proposed. It leaves labor markets with enough leeway to both increase wages overall while absorbing their additional costs. Furthermore, by pulling tipped, youth, and disability wages up to the floor, it necessarily reduces (maybe even eliminates) the prevalence of full-time minimum wage employment.

Lastly, higher wages will lead to greater productivity, ceteris paribus. See efficiency wage for more information.

 

[ttwtt78640]

i'm glad to see the tipped wage rise to match the minimum wage. however, my point still stands.

His point boils down to he likes the bill so everyone should as well.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Incremental increases are proposed. It leaves labor markets with enough leeway to both increase wages overall while absorbing their additional costs. Furthermore, by pulling tipped, youth, and disability wages up to the floor, it necessarily reduces (maybe even eliminates) the prevalence of full-time minimum wage employment.

Lastly, higher wages will lead to greater productivity, ceteris paribus. See efficiency wage for more information.

Employers do not “absorb” mandated increases in their cost of sales (by reducing their profit?) - they pass those increased costs along to the consumer whether that consumer is part of the labor force or not.

 

[Helix]

The clear intent of this proposed law is to make the federal MW much closer to the average wage and then to keep it there.

and then everyone making fifteen or sixteen bucks an hour is now making minimum wage. it would be much better to tie it to inflation and help people to rise out of those jobs.

now that i've said the same thing like three times, i will assume everyone understands my position.

 

[Kushinator]

His point boils down to he likes the bill so everyone should as well.

The reason people should support this bill is that it will raise wages for millions of Americans and will index the wage floor to median income. There are ancillary aspects as well, such as efficiency wages and reduction in dead weight loss due to monopsony (reduced full-tme MW employment).

 

[Cameron]

And the FMW should be canned anyway. Leave MW to states.

The point of federalizing the minimum wage is so that states that want to make sure their workers are treated fairly don't have to worry that companies will just move to another state that doesn't care about its workers.

 

[Kushinator]

Employers do not “absorb” mandated increases in their cost of sales (by reducing their profit?) - they pass those increased costs along to the consumer whether that consumer is part of the labor force or not.

They certainly do in competitive markets. For the most part, investment is diverted to operations that produce more value. For example, gas stations no longer employ full-service attendants. Why? Because the value being added doesn't provide a high enough return relative to investment in other areas like convenience retail, self-service beverages, automated car washes, etc.... The only time we see full-service attendants is due to government mandate.

 

[Kushinator]

and then everyone making fifteen or sixteen bucks an hour is now making minimum wage.

Which will cause wages to rise. This is a good thing!

I will assume everyone understands my position.

I understand your position. Do you understand my position?

 

[ttwtt78640]

and then everyone making fifteen or sixteen bucks an hour is now making minimum wage. it would be much better to tie it to inflation and help people to rise out of those jobs.

now that i've said the same thing like three times, i will assume everyone understands my position.

Yep, and if the federal MW was tied to CPI inflation (as SS retirement benefit COLAs already are) then raising the federal MW would follow CPI inflation instead of helping to cause it.

IMHO, this is being pushed out of fear that blue state and city MW levels are getting too high relative to those in other states and cities. The (completely justified?) fear is that those other states and cities will otherwise gain jobs which are being relocated out of those higher cost (of living and taxed) areas.

 

[ttwtt78640]

They certainly do in competitive markets. For the most part, investment is diverted to operations that produce more value. For example, gas stations no longer employ full-service attendants. Why? Because the value being added doesn't provide a high enough return relative to investment in other areas like convenience retail, self-service beverages, automated car washes, etc.... The only time we see full-service attendants is due to government mandate.

Hmm... is losing (to automation or off-shoring) more of those entry level employment opportunities now a good thing?

 

[Helix]

Which will cause wages to rise. This is a good thing!



I understand your position. Do you understand my position?

the interim will hurt pretty badly for a lot of people who are currently making fifteen bucks an hour when the minimum wage is $7.25. we can't make entry level jobs pay a comfortable wage. we can help people out of those jobs and make sure that the floor wage lifts with inflation. now that i've explained this another time, i will assume that anyone who is still confused wants to be.