Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Biden/Harris Potential Legislative/Policy Agenda Discussions


Recommended Posts

On 1/27/2021 at 4:34 PM, China said:

 

Legislation that would make Washington DC 51st state introduced to Senate

 

Sen. Tom Carper introduced legislation to the Senate that could allow Washington DC to become the 51st US state.

 

The legislation, S. 51, is called the DC Admissions Act, and, if passed, would make Washington DC a full fledged state.

 

Many of the more than 700,000 residents of Washington DC have long argued for their statehood, as they pay taxes but do not have representation in the Senate. and only a non-voting Congressperson in the House.

 

Democrats have traditionally backed the move, as residents of Washington DC tend to be liberal and vote with the Democratic Party.

 

Republicans, naturally, do not want the district to gain statehood for the same reason.

 

"This isn’t a Republican or Democratic issue; it’s an American issue because the lack of fair representation for D.C. residents is clearly inconsistent with the values on which this country was founded," Mr Carper said in a statement.

 

The bill was first introduced in 2013, but has been tabled until now.

 

In order for the legislation to pass, Senate Democrats will need to convince 10 Republicans to vote in support of the measure.

 

In the event that the Senate removed the filibuster, it could also end with Vice President Kamala Harris casting a tie-breaking vote and granting the district statehood.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

How White fears of ‘Negro domination’ kept D.C. disenfranchised for decades

 

Rep. Pat Fallon came to the hearing armed with 150 years of census data, and when it was his turn to speak he turned to D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser.

 

“Do you believe that Washington, D.C., has been historically denied statehood based on racial grounds?” the Texas Republican asked, hours into the House Oversight and Reform Committee hearing on March 22 over whether to make D.C. the 51st state.

 

Bowser (D) had said in her opening statement that the growth of the city’s Black population over time led to “racist efforts” to deny suffrage to the District — so she answered Fallon: “I think it certainly contributed.”

 

“Well, for 150 years, there was a White majority in the District,” Fallon said, just after pulling out his decades of Census Bureau data, “and it never became a state. … So it doesn’t seem like that is actually factually historically accurate at all.”

 

Historians beg to differ — particularly the historians who released a report just two days before the hearing describing how race played a role in decisions to continue disenfranchising D.C. residents for decades.

 

The report, “Democracy Deferred: Race, Politics, and D.C.’s Two-Century Struggle for Full Voting Rights,” brings to the surface a trove of overtly racist ideas about D.C.’s incapability to govern itself dating from Reconstruction — when Black men gained the right to vote — through the civil rights movement, when the city finally won limited home rule. The report was commissioned by a new nonprofit organization, Statehood Research DC, which is an offshoot of the Federal City Council, D.C.’s nonprofit conglomerate of business and civic leaders.

“For a solid 100 years after 1871, we know for a fact that the reason the city lost the franchise was principally about race,” said George Derek Musgrove, co-author of the report, as well as “Chocolate City: A History of Race and Democracy in the Nation’s Capital.” “The justification for the city losing the franchise, and for maintaining it as a voteless capital of the democracy, was principally about race.”

 

At the heart of the resistance to granting suffrage to D.C. residents: a fear of Black political power.

 

It’s all in the record, Musgrove said. Look no further than the 1890 explanation from Sen. John Tyler Morgan of Alabama, a former Confederate Democrat and enslaver, about why D.C. residents lost the right to vote in even local elections years earlier:

 

“In the face of this influx of negro population from the surrounding States, [Congress] … found it necessary to disenfranchise every man in the District of Columbia … in order thereby to get rid of this load of negro suffrage that was flooded in upon them. That is the true statement. History cannot be reversed. No man can misunderstand it.”

 

Seeking to limit the power of Black voters, as well as poor White workers, Congress reduced the number of local elected positions in 1871 and expanded the number of presidential appointees. Three years later, facing a system rife with debt and corruption — which members of Congress blamed in any case on ill-educated voters — it eradicated D.C.’s local elected government altogether in favor of a presidentially appointed board.

 

As Morgan later described it, Congress had “to burn down the barn to get rid of the rats … the rats being the negro population and the barn being the government of the District of Columbia.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:


to piss off the poor and middle class 


 

The poor would likely be better off utilizing functioning mass transit paid for with the gas tax than driving around old polluting beaters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:


 

The poor would likely be better off utilizing functioning mass transit paid for with the gas tax than driving around old polluting beaters.

We would all be better off using mass transit more. Mind you, that's part of why we need to rebuild the infrastructure. On the other hand, mass transit is pretty expensive. A round trip subway ride to pretty much anywhere in DC is five dollars. Bus rides look to be two dollars a pop. So, just going to and from work is 25 dollars a week minimum via metro and twenty dollars a week via the bus. And if you can find free parking, it's probably cheaper to drive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, tshile said:

Unsurprisingly, McDonald’s is paying for increases in minimum wage not by making less profits but by raising prices of the items they sell

 

Minimum Wage Increase Raises Consumer Prices at McDonalds : The Indicator from Planet Money  - https://www.npr.org/2021/04/14/987341168/what-mcdonalds-tells-us-about-the-minimum-wage

 

Your statement is correct, but it is missing the rest of the data and the premise of their study. It is a very minor part of their study. Their study was - What overall impact does raising the minimum wage have on workers standard of living. Their results were that yes, the price of a Big Mac went up. But it also found that those increases were more than offset by the increased wages. So the overall impact to workers was definitely a plus. This is consistent with other studies I have seen. Most studies I have seen have shown that with wages increases on average of 10%, it only drove inflation by <1% - I have seen as low as 0.36%. 

 

They also found that raising the minimum wage, at least for McDonalds, did NOT lead to less jobs. Some had been pointing to the kiosks that McDonalds have been putting in place of cashiers as a result of rising wages. They found that there was no correlation between the two. In fact, anecdotally, in Chicago, the store where one of the workers interviewed worked, had NOT put in the kiosks despite the minimum wage in Chicago being raised to $14 on it's way to $15 this year.  

 

This report again puts to bed the right wing talking points of raising minimum wage results is less jobs and increased inflation. Yes, some prices go up but they are more than overcome by the increase of spending power. I would also add that making a major step change would possibly cause some issues but a gradual increase, say $1/yr until you reach your target will be less of a shock to the economy. 

 

I will say that I do not think this should be the top issue for the Biden administration right now. I would get some other wins like infrastructure, voting rights and health care then tackle something like this. 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burgold said:

We would all be better off using mass transit more. Mind you, that's part of why we need to rebuild the infrastructure. On the other hand, mass transit is pretty expensive. A round trip subway ride to pretty much anywhere in DC is five dollars. Bus rides look to be two dollars a pop. So, just going to and from work is 25 dollars a week minimum via metro and twenty dollars a week via the bus. And if you can find free parking, it's probably cheaper to drive.

Depending on where you're driving in the DC area, there's virtually no way you can bank on spending less than $20 per week in commuting costs. The gas, parking (you said to "find free parking" as though that's easily done downtown), car payment, and depreciation equates to way more than that. 

53 minutes ago, tshile said:

Unsurprisingly, McDonald’s is paying for increases in minimum wage not by making less profits but by raising prices of the items they sell

 

Minimum Wage Increase Raises Consumer Prices at McDonalds : The Indicator from Planet Money  - https://www.npr.org/2021/04/14/987341168/what-mcdonalds-tells-us-about-the-minimum-wage

I remember this being one of the main arguments against raising minimum wage...was that companies were going to simply charge more. Very few successful business owners will willingly cut their profits or take-home money for the greater good. It's unrealistic. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:


to piss off the poor and middle class 

 

 

Everyone pays significantly less in gas tax than in 1993 (the last time it was raised).  All of our cars are much more fuel efficient (about 20% more), and yet, we pay the same amount for every fill-up as we did in 1993 in federal terms.

 

According to this article (See https://itep.org/an-unhappy-anniversary-federal-gas-tax-reaches-25-years-of-stagnation/), we are driving about an extra 60 miles more before a fuel-up vs in 1993 (and the article in about 3 years old).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Imo, policy makers need to consider tying tax breaks to ratio between executive compensation and employment metrics.  We shouldn't be giving tax breaks to fund share buybacks and executive paydays.  If companies will spend tax breaks to fund business expansion, hire more workers, and pay those workers in appropriate proportion with the highest paid executives, then that money may be better off in the companies' hands.  If it is being used to add another digit to the executive brass, I would rather than money be in the government's coffers.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, mhd24 said:

 

 

Everyone pays significantly less in gas tax than in 1993 (the last time it was raised).  All of our cars are much more fuel efficient (about 20% more), and yet, we pay the same amount for every fill-up as we did in 1993 in federal terms.

 

According to this article (See https://itep.org/an-unhappy-anniversary-federal-gas-tax-reaches-25-years-of-stagnation/), we are driving about an extra 60 miles more before a fuel-up vs in 1993 (and the article in about 3 years old).


try to sell a gas tax increase right now and see how that goes. Biden was smart to shoot this down early because politically it’s a disaster to do anything that conflates raising the taxes on regular people 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

Your statement is correct, but it is missing the rest of the data and the premise of their study. It is a very minor part of their study. Their study was - What overall impact does raising the minimum wage have on workers standard of living. Their results were that yes, the price of a Big Mac went up. But it also found that those increases were more than offset by the increased wages. So the overall impact to workers was definitely a plus. This is consistent with other studies I have seen. Most studies I have seen have shown that with wages increases on average of 10%, it only drove inflation by <1% - I have seen as low as 0.36%. 

 

They also found that raising the minimum wage, at least for McDonalds, did NOT lead to less jobs. Some had been pointing to the kiosks that McDonalds have been putting in place of cashiers as a result of rising wages. They found that there was no correlation between the two. In fact, anecdotally, in Chicago, the store where one of the workers interviewed worked, had NOT put in the kiosks despite the minimum wage in Chicago being raised to $14 on it's way to $15 this year.  

 

This report again puts to bed the right wing talking points of raising minimum wage results is less jobs and increased inflation. Yes, some prices go up but they are more than overcome by the increase of spending power. I would also add that making a major step change would possibly cause some issues but a gradual increase, say $1/yr until you reach your target will be less of a shock to the economy. 

 

I will say that I do not think this should be the top issue for the Biden administration right now. I would get some other wins like infrastructure, voting rights and health care then tackle something like this. 

 

I will also note, however.  That looking at what happens when a locality raises the minimum wage, will underestimate the inflationary impact of a national minimum wage hike.  

 

When you're looking at the price of a Big Mac in Chicago, the minimum wage in Chicago is only part of the price of the Big Mac.  

 

Raise the minimum wage in Chicago, and the price of the Big Mac's bun might or might not change.  The bun might not get baked in Chicago.  And the price of the beef patty doesn't change.  Or the wages of the truckers who delivered them.  

 

But.  Change the national minimum wage, and the prices of those ingredients go up, too.  

 

1 hour ago, tshile said:

Unsurprisingly, McDonald’s is paying for increases in minimum wage not by making less profits but by raising prices of the items they sell

 

Minimum Wage Increase Raises Consumer Prices at McDonalds : The Indicator from Planet Money  - https://www.npr.org/2021/04/14/987341168/what-mcdonalds-tells-us-about-the-minimum-wage

 

Wow.  You really destroyed the people who were arguing that raising the minimum wage would result on no increase in prices, or corporate profits, at all.  :) 

 

Now, sarcasm aside?  I've always assumed that a MW hike would be grossly inflationary.  And that it would cause a small shift of wealth towards the bottom end of the wage scale.  But I'll admit that my assumption is based solely on my unsupported belief in vast, nebulous, unspecified "market forces" as a whole.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Larry said:

 

I will also note, however.  That looking at what happens when a locality raises the minimum wage, will underestimate the inflationary impact of a national minimum wage hike.  

 

When you're looking at the price of a Big Mac in Chicago, the minimum wage in Chicago is only part of the price of the Big Mac.  

 

Raise the minimum wage in Chicago, and the price of the Big Mac's bun might or might not change.  The bun might not get baked in Chicago.  And the price of the beef patty doesn't change.  Or the wages of the truckers who delivered them.  

 

But.  Change the national minimum wage, and the prices of those ingredients go up, too.  

 

 

Below is from the transcript. They looked at 1000s of McDonalds across the country both where wages went up and went down. May want to read the transcript in its entirety to better understand what they did. 

 

So what Ashenfelter and his colleagues did was they tracked thousands of McDonald's all around the country between 2016 and 2020. And they compared McDonald's in places where the minimum wage went up with McDonald's in places where the wage didn't go up. And then they used the data they found to answer, really, a bunch of questions.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I will also note, however.  That looking at what happens when a locality raises the minimum wage, will underestimate the inflationary impact of a national minimum wage hike.  

 

When you're looking at the price of a Big Mac in Chicago, the minimum wage in Chicago is only part of the price of the Big Mac.  

 

Raise the minimum wage in Chicago, and the price of the Big Mac's bun might or might not change.  The bun might not get baked in Chicago.  And the price of the beef patty doesn't change.  Or the wages of the truckers who delivered them.  

 

But.  Change the national minimum wage, and the prices of those ingredients go up, too.  

 

 

We've raised the national minimum wage before.  There is no evidence that a national minimum wage results in 100% pass through (i.e. businesses are able to pass the costs of the minimum wage onto their customers 100%).  Evidence looking at previous increases in national wage at the national level suggest it is quite small (and as stated even less than 1%).  Yes prices will go up some, but not very much.

 

The effect on employment (not so much increasing unemployment, but decreasing future employment with people leaving the labor force and so no longer being counted as unemployed) at the low wage end and low skill end is a bigger factor.

 

Though the CBO estimates the net effect is still fewer people in poverty.  The increase in wages offsets the loss of employment.

 

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55681#:~:text=The federal minimum wage of,their family income would fall.

 

I'm not really a big fan of raising the minimum wage, but not doing it because of fears of raising inflation are pretty unfounded.

Edited by PeterMP
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

Below is from the transcript. They looked at 1000s of McDonalds across the country both where wages went up and went down. May want to read the transcript in its entirety to better understand what they did. 

 

So what Ashenfelter and his colleagues did was they tracked thousands of McDonald's all around the country between 2016 and 2020. And they compared McDonald's in places where the minimum wage went up with McDonald's in places where the wage didn't go up. And then they used the data they found to answer, really, a bunch of questions.

 

And in every one of them, they looked at places where the local minimum wage went up.  

 

Because, well, there weren't any McDonalds in the US where the national wage went up.  

 

- - - 

 

And I'll also point out.  I think that pretending that changing the minimum wage only affects people at McDonalds is a false narrative.  I believe, an intentionally false one.  

 

I support raising the minimum wage.  gradually.  Nationally.  Been in favor of it for two decades.  

 

But it's not because I'm concerned about McDonald's workers.  Well, not only them.  It's because I absolutely believe that raising the minimum wage will cause an increase in the wages of all of the workers who are at the bottom end of the wage scale.  

 

See, I believe that, while CNA's don't make minimum wage, they make close to it.  And the reason they make more than minimum, is because the net total of thousands of market forces have resulted on a "market price" for that job, which is slightly above minimum.  And that those market forces will still be in place after a MW hike.  

 

I support raising the minimum wage, because of the effect it will have on the wages of nurses.  Plumbers.  Receptionists.  Dental hygienists.  Teachers.  All the people in our country who we normally think of as trying to raise a family, on a job that pays a bit more than minimum.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

Your statement is correct, but it is missing the rest of the data and the premise of their study. 

Yeah I wasn’t trying to provide a all encompassing summary of it :)

 

just the one part that yes - it leads to increased prices. At least for McDonald’s. Which is often the standard used in discussing minimum wage. I don’t know why, I don’t have a problem with it I just don’t know why 

 

we often hear this Econ 101 argument about max price a market will bear and how it will come out of corporate profits somehow and I always laugh. Here’s a study saying it comes from price increases. 
 

the Econ 101 argument needs to be dropped. Because it’s super basic and incorrect. 

56 minutes ago, Larry said:

Wow.  You really destroyed the people who were arguing that raising the minimum wage would result on no increase in prices, or corporate profits, at all.  :) 


just providing a reasonably sound analysis that shows that those people using Econ 101 arguments don’t know what they’re talking about. 
 

it’s also one company in one area. I’m sure there will be cases where it doesn’t come from price increases. But to suggest it won’t in general is naive and dumb. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

They also found that raising the minimum wage, at least for McDonalds, did NOT lead to less jobs

They also found that the workers making above minimum wage, didn’t just suddenly only make minimum wage once it was raised. Their pay was raised to be higher than the new minimum wage, in reflection to how their pay was previously higher than the previous minimum wage. 
 

they cite fighting turnover for the reason they would get paid, say $17 when the minimum wage was raised to 15$, instead of just getting a raise to 15$

 

(if you covered that I apologize I read it and didn’t see it...)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

And in every one of them, they looked at places where the local minimum wage went up.  

 

Because, well, there weren't any McDonalds in the US where the national wage went up.  

 

- - - 

 

And I'll also point out.  I think that pretending that changing the minimum wage only affects people at McDonalds is a false narrative.  I believe, an intentionally false one.  

 

I support raising the minimum wage.  gradually.  Nationally.  Been in favor of it for two decades.  

 

But it's not because I'm concerned about McDonald's workers.  Well, not only them.  It's because I absolutely believe that raising the minimum wage will cause an increase in the wages of all of the workers who are at the bottom end of the wage scale.  

 

See, I believe that, while CNA's don't make minimum wage, they make close to it.  And the reason they make more than minimum, is because the net total of thousands of market forces have resulted on a "market price" for that job, which is slightly above minimum.  And that those market forces will still be in place after a MW hike.  

 

I support raising the minimum wage, because of the effect it will have on the wages of nurses.  Plumbers.  Receptionists.  Dental hygienists.  Teachers.  All the people in our country who we normally think of as trying to raise a family, on a job that pays a bit more than minimum.  

 

I have not seen anyone even suggest that changing the minimum wage only affects McDonalds - I will go further and say no one is suggesting it will only affect retail and food service which is what I think you meant. This sounds like an ax with no place to land so you are making one. If you have references where that has been discussed, that only the impact to retail and food service workers would be impacted and thus we should only care abotu them, I would be interested as I would also disagree with that analysis. There are many - too many in my opinion - jobs that are at or close to minimum wage.  

 

They used the data they had. And the only thing I am saying, and that they are saying, is that the report suggests, repeat SUGGESTS, that while raising the minimum wage will increase costs it is made up for by increased spending power based on the data they had. Nothing more nothing less. And this is in line with other studies that have been done. As time goes by and more and more and more cities and other local governments increase their minimum wage, it helps the accumulation of data. And so far - the results have been very similar. This report is in line with previous studies. 

 

All you can do is make conclusions with the data available. You can't measure the effects of national minimum wage hike until you have one. So that is not a good faith argument. 

 

It was not discussed previously, but since you bring it up, I am also in favor of a gradual minimum wage increase. I believe a step change might shock the economy and while long term I think it would be OK, it would create some short term pain that is unnecessary. Ultimately it will impact those workers near minimum wage as they will then have to compete with other jobs - the same reason they are close but above right now. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:


try to sell a gas tax increase right now and see how that goes. Biden was smart to shoot this down early because politically it’s a disaster to do anything that conflates raising the taxes on regular people 

 

 

Of course its politically smart not to touch it.  It would require courage to raise the gas tax (something that needs to be done).  While the federal gas tax has stagnated: inflation, labor costs, materials costs have all risen.  Couple that with rapid fuel efficiency and you have a recipe for disaster in terms of transportation funding. The transportation fund has to be bailed out by the general tax fund now.  The transportation fund is supposed to be self-funded.  People who drive should be the ones who pay for the maintenance and upkeep of our roads.  

 

As our cars continue to be more and more fuel efficient, we'll have crappier roads and structurally deficient bridges.  Someone who owns an electric vehicle pays nothing federally in the maintenance of ours roads.  That's not really fair from a user-fee perspective.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

It was not discussed previously, but since you bring it up, I am also in favor of a gradual minimum wage increase. I believe a step change might shock the economy and while long term I think it would be OK, it would create some short term pain that is unnecessary. Ultimately it will impact those workers near minimum wage as they will then have to compete with other jobs - the same reason they are close but above right now. 

 

That's my position, too.  My reasoning is:  

 

Right now, just looking at a few selected jobs where I'm aware of the numbers, and just here in Florida, the numbers are:  (Rounded, approximate, numbers):  

 

Minimum wage $8

CNAs: $11

LPNs:  $20

 

Now, if a magic wand in Washington gets waved, and the min wage tomorrow gets raised to $15, I am absolutely 100% guarantee you that those numbers become:  

 

Minimum wage: $15

CNAs: $15

LPNs: $20.  

 

The burger flipper will get a huge raise.  The CNA, a smaller one.  The LPN, zero.  

 

But.  The reason the CNA, right now, is getting $11 instead of $8, is because there are market forces that dictate that, if the nursing homes try to pay $8, they won't get any applicants.  The market has said that they have to pay "minimum plus $3", or they won't get employees.  

 

And those same market forces will still exist, after the min wage goes to $15.  So, while the day after the increase, CNAs might get paid the same as burger flippers.  But a few pears later, they'll be making more than that.  And those same effects will ripple through every job which is currently near minimum wage.  So I think it's guaranteed that, five years after the min wage goes to $15, those numbers will be in the ballpark of:  

 

Minimum wage:  $15

CNAs: $18

LPNs:  $25

 

I'm absolutely certain that raising the minimum wage will result in a pay raise for all of the workers who's pay isn't minimum, but it's low.  

 

But I'm also certain that it will take a few years to show up.  For those other people.  

 

----------

 

The only advantage to a quick hike in the min wage that I can see, is political.  I can see the advantage of doing it the same way Republicans do with tax cuts on the rich.  "Do it right this instant, and then make the other side try to take it away from people, after they're receiving it."  

 

20 minutes ago, mhd24 said:

Of course its politically smart not to touch it.  It would require courage to raise the gas tax (something that needs to be done)

 

My problem with a sudden increase in the gas tax is similar.  It's a huge price increase, on people who don't have the option of altering their lifestyle instantly.  

 

Now, I wouldn't have nearly as big a problem with a proposal of "Raise the tax 50 cents/gallon, every year, for the next 10 years".  

 

That option gives people 10 years notice that it's coming, and allows them to factor it into their decisions.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

that while raising the minimum wage will increase costs it is made up for by increased spending power

For the workers that see a wage increase. 
 

We know not all workers will see a wage increase. Every business will not immediate run the math and say, for example, hey 25$/hr earner, you’re getting a raise to reflect what your pays ratio to the new minimum wage is compared to what it was!

 

I don’t think anyone knows where the line will be drawn and it will probably vary from state to state, industry to industry, and company to company. I think it’s fair to say you’ll see a sliding scale - the further away you are for minimum wage the lower your raise will be and at some point you will see 0$ in raise. 
 

so I think it’s fair to say this data suggests that the lower end income earners will be either not impacted or likely impacted minimally by the raise in the cost of goods. 
 

which is and has been an argument because there’s a sizable chunk of these people that work at places that low income earners tend to frequent more often. Ie: a minimum wage worker is more likely to frequent, say, a McDonald’s, and therefor a rise in prices at McDonald’s will be more likely to disproportionally affect minimum wage workers (they’ll foot to bill moreso than the upper end that doesn’t go to McDonald’s nearly as often.) just a basic example, and please bear with me as it’s not like I’m an economist. I’m sure there are better examples. 
 

 

but the 25$ worker who didn’t see a raise is impacted. Price of goods has gone up and their income hasn’t. They’ve been “dragged down” per se - which maybe is an irrelevant description because you can often times  look at dragging a group of people “Up” and say the opposite end got dragged “down”. But I think the description has a place in the larger argument. 
 

this is why I don’t like minimum wage as a solution to the wealth/wage gap. I think minimum wage should be chained to some economic metric so we’re not stuck waiting for politicians to make a change because we already see how that goes and it’s ineffective to put it mildly. 
 

but ultimately I think you fix the wage gap by targeting the top, and shifting what you take to the bottom. Minimum wage doesn’t do that. It targets the middle, and leaves the top relatively unscathed. That’s not fixing the gap. That’s just shifting where the gap is. 
 

And I don’t know that anyone can firmly say the long term effects won’t cause things to shift right back where they were over some amount of time. I’m not an economist so maybe there is a sound argument against that, but that’s the way I currently see things. 
 

making the cost of living cheaper for lower income people by taxing the rich would be a better solution to me. 
 

implementing a net wealth tax that takes money from the top and reallocated it to the bottom (however you want to do that) makes more sense to me. 
 

🤷‍♂️ 

 

but otherwise there is some interesting information in there about how McDonald’s has responded, which (I think) you covered almost all of except for the ratio to minimum wage raise increases i added to your post. 

Edited by tshile
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Larry said:

Now, if a magic wand in Washington gets waved, and the min wage tomorrow gets raised to $15, I am absolutely 100% guarantee you that those numbers become:  

 

Minimum wage: $15

CNAs: $15

LPNs: $20.  

 

The burger flipper will get a huge raise.  The CNA, a smaller one.  The LPN, zero.  

This is not how McDonald’s responded in the data being discussed 

 

(I otherwise agree with your post just wanted to point this out)

Edited by tshile
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I don’t think anyone knows where the line will be drawn and it will probably very from state to state, industry to industry, and company to company. I think it’s fair to see you’ll see a sliding scale - the further away you are for minimum wage the lower your raise will be and at some point you will see 0$ in raise. 


Absolutely agree. 

I think of the labor market as being printed on a sheet of rubber. Move the dot that represents one job, and nearby dots move, too. And move the entire bottom of the sheet, and everybody near the bottom will move. The further you are from the bottom, the less you will move. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...