Democrats should now confront the minimum wage rate.

Aug 2010
217
40
Cliffside Park, NJ
#1
Democrats regained the congressional House. Now they should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate issue.

I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.

It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.

Possible House’s negotiating positions:

The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.

The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.

I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Sep 2018
503
6
Atlanta area
#3
A minimum wage is SOCIALISTIC. A capitalist Republic (and a good one at that) does NOT need one, there is no place for them, and it would be detrimental to the economy, just like the buffoon experiments in certain cities (i.e. Seattle) were disasters!!! :oops:

The FREE MARKET is always best at determining wages. Just like "wage & price controls" in the 70s were a big disaster.

Incomes policies in economics are economy-wide wage and price controls, most commonly instituted as a response to inflation, and usually seeking to establish wages and prices below free market level.[1]

Incomes policies have often been resorted to during wartime. During the French Revolution, "The Law of the Maximum" imposed price controls (by penalty of death) in an unsuccessful attempt to curb inflation,[2] and such measures were also attempted after World War II. Peacetime income policies were resorted to in the US in August 1971 as a response to inflation. The wage and price controls were effective initially but were made less restrictive in January 1973, and later removed when they seemed to be having no effect on curbing inflation.[3] Incomes policies were successful in the United Kingdom during World War II but less successful in the post-war era.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomes_policy


The bottom line, is that if you don't like your wage, you can GET A BETTER ONE (unless you are too lazy to) in a booming economy!!! :cool: One does not need a NANNY STATE handing people a better wage on a silver platter, especially if they do not deserve it! - hello?!:D
 
Aug 2010
217
40
Cliffside Park, NJ
#5
Not going to happen with the Senate what it is.
... I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections. ...
David, in that case, it will be to Democrats great advantage in 2020.
Respectfully, Supposn
 
Jul 2009
5,793
445
Opa Locka
#6
David, in that case, it will be to Democrats great advantage in 2020.
Respectfully, Supposn
Oh I agree, even Repub voters want a higher min wage. But that doesn't change the fact that until the next election the Senate is going to kill any min wage hike. And if somehow a min wage bill does pass, Trump will veto it.
 
Aug 2010
217
40
Cliffside Park, NJ
#7
Oh I agree, even Repub voters want a higher min wage. But that doesn't change the fact that until the next election the Senate is going to kill any min wage hike. And if somehow a min wage bill does pass, Trump will veto it.
David, regardless if President Trump does or does not sign an increased minimum wage w/annual automatic purchasing power retention, it will be to Democrats political advantage to pass such a bill ASAP. It’s a bill they can pass with their least inner party disagreements and it clearly differentiates a difference between our major parties.

[I’m among the proponents of a minimum wage rate that retains its purchasing power. We retain Social Security retirement benefits’ purchasing powers by annually updating it to stay abreast with changes to the urban consumer-price, (CPU) index number.
I advocate increasing the federal minimum wage rate by 12.5% on the last day of each year until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, and thereafter when necessary adjusting it on that date to stay abreast with the CPU index number.]

If a sufficiently improved minimum rate law has not begun enactment, then prior to 2020 congressional summer recess, scheduling a floor vote for an improved minimum rate bill immediately upon return from recess, would be to Democrats’ political and the nation’s economic advantages.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Dec 2018
219
8
Tempe, AZ
#8
The minimum wage should be ABOLISHED, and the FREE market determine wages. Best way to get the absolute best prosperity!!! :cool:

Artificial wages are never a good idea. "Wage & Price Controls" in the 70s were a huge failure.

 
Last edited:
Aug 2018
462
87
Shady Dale, Georgia
#9
Democrats only control the House of Representatives. Anything that they pass, that isn't supported by the Republicans will never get voted on in the Senate. And vice versa.
 
Aug 2018
462
87
Shady Dale, Georgia
#16
Have you ever wondered why unions fight so hard for minimum wage increases? There aren’t very many union members making minimum wage. The reason they fight for increases to the minimum wage is simple, most union contracts have language in the requiring an increase to match the percentage of any minimum wage increase in the wage tables.

Minimum wage is for two groups of people, those new to they workforce and losers who do the minimum.

Right now, we have more people looking for jobs than we have jobs. This gives the potential employee more power than the employer. Don’t like what the employer offers? Make a counter offer or decline the job offer. There are plenty of Now Hiring signs out there. Pick another.

Walmart increased its starting wage not because the minimum wage law changed but rather because they realized they needed to pay more to keep good employees.


Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk Pro
 
Dec 2018
219
8
Tempe, AZ
#17
Minimum wage is for two groups of people, those new to they workforce and losers who do the minimum.
In a FREE society, those working AT an artificially & capriciously imposed minimum wage do so, because they simply made that choice. It is a 1 or 0 choice of one's own free will. Nobody is forcing them to do so. :cool:

Just like NobamaCare, one can chose a high premium/low benefit plan, or a low premium/high benefit plan. All it takes is a little use of the gray matter to figure that out. It isn't rocket science.
 
Jul 2009
5,793
445
Opa Locka
#18
Have you ever wondered why unions fight so hard for minimum wage increases? There aren’t very many union members making minimum wage. The reason they fight for increases to the minimum wage is simple, most union contracts have language in the requiring an increase to match the percentage of any minimum wage increase in the wage tables.

Minimum wage is for two groups of people, those new to they workforce and losers who do the minimum.

Right now, we have more people looking for jobs than we have jobs. This gives the potential employee more power than the employer. Don’t like what the employer offers? Make a counter offer or decline the job offer. There are plenty of Now Hiring signs out there. Pick another.

Walmart increased its starting wage not because the minimum wage law changed but rather because they realized they needed to pay more to keep good employees.


Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk Pro
The min wage is because the free market would pay you what you're valued (not necessarily the same as what you're worth). They'd pay you as little as they could without you refusing to work and while some companies would pay you more to poach you, the profit margins that most profit motivated businesses would prioritize would result in a race to the bottom. You'd be little more than a slave, making almost nothing and forced to live and shop using company services (tieing you ever more to the company) becuase you wouldn't be able to afford anything on the open market. The min wage (slightly above a living wage when 1st implemented) broke the surf-like hold companies had on their employees, propelled workers into the middle class (the classic house wife was a thing only becuase the min wage husband could pay for everything) and the increased consumer spending by this larger middle class propped up the economy beyond any inflationary effects.

A min wage should reflect the cost of living (nobody in bumfuck nowhere Kansas needs $15/hr but $15/hr wouldn't pay the bills for a cardboard box in Manhattan) but it's not for new or lazy workers. It's as low as you can go without literally putting people in the poor house. Don't complain that a burger flipper shouldn't make $15/hr while a paramedic makes less, complain that the paramedic is being underpaid.
 
Aug 2018
462
87
Shady Dale, Georgia
#19
That sounds like you are talking about choices. Just because someone chooses to live in a high rent area, is their labor worth more to the employer? If so, then let the employer make that decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Similar Discussions