Forum Thread

Minimum wage should be a %-age of cost-of-living (COL)

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 21 1 2 Next
  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Minimum wage is an illusion. Because it is not a %-age, raising it only only creates temporary (a few years) relief.

    Most people on minimum wage are unable to save money. Thus, everything they earn is spent mostly on necessities. When we raise minimum wage, more money is spent on necessities, thus inching up the price of those things (law of supply and demand) until, a few years later, the minimum wage again no longer matches the cost of living.

    Why can't some truly smart people come up with a formula to estimate the "cost of living" and then make minimum wage a %-age of that? Then we will never hear anyone scream to increase minimum wage again.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jeff.allen.nj Wrote: Minimum wage is an illusion. Because it is not a %-age, raising it only only creates temporary (a few years) relief.

    Most people on minimum wage are unable to save money. Thus, everything they earn is spent mostly on necessities. When we raise minimum wage, more money is spent on necessities, thus inching up the price of those things (law of supply and demand) until, a few years later, the minimum wage again no longer matches the cost of living.

    Why can't some truly smart people come up with a formula to estimate the "cost of living" and then make minimum wage a %-age of that? Then we will never hear anyone scream to increase minimum wage again.

    The self made rugged individualist promulgated by the right wing portrays any kind playing field leveling as weakness to help deadbeats. Consider the unfairness of pricing to limit pollution by restricting sales of gasoline. The only people that restrict purchasing gasoline according to price are poor people. So once again the cost of a program is on the backs and health of the poor. A fair way to reduce gasoline consumption would be by rationing. But the war against injustice is hampered because it is individually issue battled. Defining human rights and pursuing imposition of human rights is the way to solve all discriminations. The main resource a country has is its citizens. At one time or another different groups of citizens are called on to produce. Therefore providing the bascis of life should be a right. Citizens would be maintained ready for any eventuality and life would be peaceful.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jeff.allen.nj Wrote: Minimum wage is an illusion. Because it is not a %-age, raising it only only creates temporary (a few years) relief.

    Most people on minimum wage are unable to save money. Thus, everything they earn is spent mostly on necessities. When we raise minimum wage, more money is spent on necessities, thus inching up the price of those things (law of supply and demand) until, a few years later, the minimum wage again no longer matches the cost of living.

    Why can't some truly smart people come up with a formula to estimate the "cost of living" and then make minimum wage a %-age of that? Then we will never hear anyone scream to increase minimum wage again.

    What you are advocating is indexing the minimum wage to the cost of living, much like Social Security benefits are indexed to inflation, the so called CPI-W. However, for it to be truly fair it would have to have a geographical component and maybe a rural versus urban component. The cost of living varies across the USA, and the various basket of goods and services that make up the CPI-W are not a "one size fits all". Seniors, especially have been critical of it because their health care costs are not representative of the weighting factor in the CPI-W.

    It's a good idea, but would require a lot of work on how it could be administered more fairly.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt, Rules and regulations. The NFL & NASCAR & NBA & MLB get it. Level the playing field so everybody has a chance to make it. Salary caps, price controls and anti trust. Plan the economy to be stable and long term.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Even in the 1890's they knew the danger of conspiring to eliminate trade. That also pertains to trusts that remove money and dedicate it to perpetual dynasties. The widening income gap could be addressed by the 1890 law outlawing certain trusts.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Even in the 1890's they knew the danger of conspiring to eliminate trade. That also pertains to trusts that remove money and dedicate it to perpetual dynasties. The widening income gap could be addressed by the 1890 law outlawing certain trusts.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    South Central, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:
    What you are advocating is indexing the minimum wage to the cost of living, much like Social Security benefits are indexed to inflation, the so called CPI-W.

    Far to late for that. Take it all the way back to post WWII, okay. Cost of living? Okay. But we need a better definition. If the SS was indexed properly, the elderly you apparently care about, wouldn't have lost anywhere near as much ground as they/we have. The other problem is when using a percentage increase across the board, the difference between the haves and have nots continues to widen.

    Why not attach it in some way to the 1%. That would seem far more fair. When those at the top keep more and more of the profits the employees created, while the cost of living doesn't go up, the labor output has.

    Why do we always have to make it better for those at the top of the pay scale over the majority of others. Democrats used to believe in protecting the many from the few. Now the few look more like the Party "leaders."
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    It's interesting that the top 5 countries, Denmark, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway and Finland, on the "Happiest Countries" list do not have government mandated minimum wages. Rather the total wage structures are set by negotiation with individual trade unions within a discipline, and they do vary by locale and type of industry. They also all have high overall taxes and there are no issues with providing care for seniors.

    With a proper progressive taxation system that makes the super rich pay a higher percentage of the costs of living in our society, the issue of specifically targeting the 1 percent would be moot. Furthermore, if a larger percentage of our tax base was spent on society's needs rather than the military industrial complex, we would be more egalitarian with less inequality. Instead our society has reverted to finger pointing at each other or blaming government.

    Social security in the United States was never conceived as a full "retirement pension fund". From it's earliest days it was an "insurance program" that provided a basic level of subsistence to those who for whatever circumstances lost whatever savings they had. The premise was that it would augment personal savings and not be a substitute for personal savings.

    As my wife and I both draw social security benefits, I would say our life styles would be severely curtailed if we had not saved frugally over our working years. I have less sympathy for those Americans who were undisciplined during their working careers and did not put aside enough money in personal retirement funds, whether it be corporate plans, 401ks, IRAs, or just stocks, bonds and property. Life is about the personal choices people make during their lifetime, including taking personal responsibility.

    Having said that, I would make some kind of exceptions for those who, for medical reasons or other reasons beyond their control, have to dip deeply into their life savings. People should not have to lose their entire personal savings for treating medical conditions.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Raising the minimum wage is an unfair method of shifting the cost back to the recipient. I also think it is unfair to businesses to put a non related cost on their balance sheets. Additionally I think all businesses have a different cost structure for labor. Leave the minimum wage alone and effect the earnings through the IRS. A person would file their taxes and then receive a credit to be paid out over 12 months of the difference between their pay and what they would have earned with a minimum wage increase. This would serve everybody better. Understanding that the country needs everybody and everybody needs the country then a massive inverse austerity program should be instituted. Call the program rausterity so the word austerity couldn't be taken out of context and used in a negative argument.- Index rausterity to the GDP at a ratio and starting point that would insure a budget surplus. Rausterity would be the foundation for a progressively increasing income tax with a tax liability starting above an income that produces discretionary funds. Screen deductions to allow only USA benefitting causes. Noting that Rausterity is controlled by the GDP. Move to reduce and eliminate gambling on financial trading that is secondary to the interest of the underlying asset. Initially place a gaming tax on all asset trading that is not effected by unrelated influences. Coincidentally defining futures on this standard. The objective to maintain sensitive industries. Move to standardize interstate transportation and trade laws. (Pause for work)
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    It's interesting that the top 5 countries, Denmark, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway and Finland, on the "Happiest Countries" list do not have government mandated minimum wages. Rather the total wage structures are set by negotiation with individual trade unions within a discipline, and they do vary by locale and type of industry. They also all have high overall taxes and there are no issues with providing care for seniors.

    With a proper progressive taxation system that makes the super rich pay a higher percentage of the costs of living in our society, the issue of specifically targeting the 1 percent would be moot. Furthermore, if a larger percentage of our tax base was spent on society's needs rather than the military industrial complex, we would be more egalitarian with less inequality. Instead our society has reverted to finger pointing at each other or blaming government.

    Social security in the United States was never conceived as a full "retirement pension fund". From it's earliest days it was an "insurance program" that provided a basic level of subsistence to those who for whatever circumstances lost whatever savings they had. The premise was that it would augment personal savings and not be a substitute for personal savings.

    As my wife and I both draw social security benefits, I would say our life styles would be severely curtailed if we had not saved frugally over our working years. I have less sympathy for those Americans who were undisciplined during their working careers and did not put aside enough money in personal retirement funds, whether it be corporate plans, 401ks, IRAs, or just stocks, bonds and property. Life is about the personal choices people make during their lifetime, including taking personal responsibility.

    Having said that, I would make some kind of exceptions for those who, for medical reasons or other reasons beyond their control, have to dip deeply into their life savings. People should not have to lose their entire personal savings for treating medical conditions.

    Schmidt, well said. Indeed we stubbornly refuse to copy Denmark or others; especially tax wise. That is what Bernie preaches. When I worked, I got paid based on performance, which worked very well. Related to savings, I did the same, but an horrible divorce as well dirty US lawyers, reduced my savings substantially. Yes your last line certainly should apply to the handicapped as well the unfortunate, for instance in the coal industry. I saw a documentary on 60 minutes about West Virginia, in which the situation was worse than any third world country. I guess it would be good for Trump to force him to see that. As long as this country continuous on the capitalistic path nothing is going to change, due to our lawyer and antique Constitution based system. Money talks, not brains.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:
    Schmidt Wrote:

    It's interesting that the top 5 countries, Denmark, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway and Finland, on the "Happiest Countries" list do not have government mandated minimum wages. Rather the total wage structures are set by negotiation with individual trade unions within a discipline, and they do vary by locale and type of industry. They also all have high overall taxes and there are no issues with providing care for seniors.

    With a proper progressive taxation system that makes the super rich pay a higher percentage of the costs of living in our society, the issue of specifically targeting the 1 percent would be moot. Furthermore, if a larger percentage of our tax base was spent on society's needs rather than the military industrial complex, we would be more egalitarian with less inequality. Instead our society has reverted to finger pointing at each other or blaming government.

    Social security in the United States was never conceived as a full "retirement pension fund". From it's earliest days it was an "insurance program" that provided a basic level of subsistence to those who for whatever circumstances lost whatever savings they had. The premise was that it would augment personal savings and not be a substitute for personal savings.

    As my wife and I both draw social security benefits, I would say our life styles would be severely curtailed if we had not saved frugally over our working years. I have less sympathy for those Americans who were undisciplined during their working careers and did not put aside enough money in personal retirement funds, whether it be corporate plans, 401ks, IRAs, or just stocks, bonds and property. Life is about the personal choices people make during their lifetime, including taking personal responsibility.

    Having said that, I would make some kind of exceptions for those who, for medical reasons or other reasons beyond their control, have to dip deeply into their life savings. People should not have to lose their entire personal savings for treating medical conditions.

    Schmidt, well said. Indeed we stubbornly refuse to copy Denmark or others; especially tax wise. That is what Bernie preaches. When I worked, I got paid based on performance, which worked very well. Related to savings, I did the same, but an horrible divorce as well dirty US lawyers, reduced my savings substantially. Yes your last line certainly should apply to the handicapped as well the unfortunate, for instance in the coal industry. I saw a documentary on 60 minutes about West Virginia, in which the situation was worse than any third world country. I guess it would be good for Trump to force him to see that. As long as this country continuous on the capitalistic path nothing is going to change, due to our lawyer and antique Constitution based system. Money talks, not brains.

    Dutch, Schmidt proposes thoughtful generosity. He makes exceptions for unforseen, unpredictable and uncontrollable circumstances to justify helping individuals. But then he applies the thoughtful process and defines the qualifying circumstances. You can be upset and mad at people that need help but you can't blame them and deny them help. A true capitalist system would have everybody working and there would be adequate tax revenues to take care of the whole family. The USA does not have capitalism. We had a capitalist system that the right legislated into an oligarchy that is steaming to plutocracy. They rationalise that workers are expendable and that makes heroes out of people that can make a profit without producing goods and services. It was not an aberration or idiosyncrasy that gambling used to be illegal. Gambling was illegal because it was counterproductive and destructive. Gambling is why we have growing poverty, income gap , growing dependent class, 1.2 trillion dollar student debt bubble and a ridiculously complicated growingly expensive health care system. Resulting in rationalizing generosity.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Chet -- You amaze me with how you make connections where none exist. All the decisions you make in life include risk...or gambling as you put it. If you survived childhood, then choosing a career is a risk that your job will not disappear at some point...or even the job that you thought would be there before going to school. When you get married you are risking that you have chosen the right mate and she's not going to dump you at some point. When you are buying a house you are risking that the market in that area will not drop or that it won't be swept away in a flood. If you want to live in a society where everything is planned for you (no risk on your part) well then maybe you need to look at certain countries other than the USA.

    Life is all about the choices you make and taking responsibility for your decisions...not blaming others. Now I do believe that health care is a right and not a privilege. The Affordable Care Act along with the related plans...Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, Veterans, Employer based plans, should, with government subsidies, ideally cover everyone. The reason they don't is largely related to Republican obstructionism.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Chet -- You amaze me with how you make connections where none exist. All the decisions you make in life include risk...or gambling as you put it. If you survived childhood, then choosing a career is a risk that your job will not disappear at some point...or even the job that you thought would be there before going to school. When you get married you are risking that you have chosen the right mate and she's not going to dump you at some point. When you are buying a house you are risking that the market in that area will not drop or that it won't be swept away in a flood. If you want to live in a society where everything is planned for you (no risk on your part) well then maybe you need to look at certain countries other than the USA.

    Life is all about the choices you make and taking responsibility for your decisions...not blaming others. Now I do believe that health care is a right and not a privilege. The Affordable Care Act along with the related plans...Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, Veterans, Employer based plans, should, with government subsidies, ideally cover everyone. The reason they don't is largely related to Republican obstructionism.

    Yes, Schmidt, the right attitude; life is a roller coaster , I know all about it. just make the best of it.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt, What you refer to as blaming others I call exposing abuse. It is nice to rationalize a successful position as a function of personal choice. When I challenge choice defenders to chose again first predicting the results I never get any takers. Lauding positive choices requires excuses or denial for the negative ones.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Ask Zuckerberg about the Newark Money.