What a meaningless made up sentence.
Makes sense to me. The market doesn't care that someone planned to offer a job to a teen, or that life was simpler in the 50s, or whatever outdated ideas you have about minimum wage jobs.
Aside from where unions are involved, they are paid a fair wage.
....unless they aren't, as indicated by the need of our society to subsidize the incomes of those low-wage workers.
We could use other measures as well to determine a fair wage, such as purchasing power, or just keeping up with inflation, or productivity gains. Oh, wait! We do, and still find that $7.25/hour is too low.
Great, more emotional victim-speak.
Great, more refusal to read more than 5 words, and understand a concept in context.
All you guys do in your minimum wage hyper-obsession is deny that it affects price or employment. You point to past small increases and say "see? Negative effects are so small!" But so were the increases.
So are the proposed increases!
Are you genuinely incapable of reading how almost everyone who suggests MW hikes is talking about incremental changes? How I
explicitly stated in that post that MW should be indexed to inflation? Do you really think that keeping wages on pace with inflation, which has hovered around 2% since the Reagan years, indicates a massive change?
The negative effect on employment is logarithmic.
Yes, you definitely proved it by.... making stuff up.
If you're going to make a claim like this, let's see some proof.
A federal wage floor designed to meet some sort preconception of what a wage earner needs defies the reality
of our vastly diverse local and regional
markets, vastly diverse sizes of businesses....
No, it doesn't. It only sets the floor. Think of it as providing a decent wage for the areas with the lowest COLA.
States and cities can and do set higher MW to suit their regional areas -- with the exception of boneheaded moves like Missouri blocking Kansas City from increasing its minimum wages. That is why cities like Seattle already have a higher MW than, say, Louisiana.
A one-size-fits all wage floor ignores this diversity as a mere inconvenient fact that gets in the way of the left wing mission to hike the minimum wage....
lol
First, regional and industry-specific MWs are not incompatible with things like indexing MW to inflation, or ensuring higher overall MWs.
Second, I don't hear any conservatives advocating that type of system. They are categorically opposed to ANY increases in MW.
Third, I have no doubt that if anyone on the left proposed a system that accounts for region and industry and inflation, conservatives would
still bitch and moan about it.
But hey, if you want to propose an Australian-style system for the US? Go for it. Don't let my agreement that it's a good idea stop you.
You zealots work so hard to keep the focus on the contrived pretense that all wage workers are trying to raise families, in expensive cities, and pay household bills, with each single wage.
Us "zealots" are looking at the facts about who currently works at minimum wage.
Again: 73% work full time. Over half are 25 and older; 2/3 are women; 3/4 are white; 3/4 are full time. 1/3 are in the South, 1/4 in the West. They are fairly well distributed across sectors. 34% only have a high school degree, another 35% have some college education (but no degree). 80% are over 25; 18% are ages 55 and older. About half are married.
About half are supporting themselves on MW.
There are still many middle-class teens working MW. But they also deserve a fair wage, and "fairness" is
never produced by unimpeded markets. It is not the purpose of free markets to establish fairness; its specialty is efficiency. The tradeoff between efficiency and equity in markets is Econ 101.