Biden seeking a $15 an hour minimum wage in his Covid relief proposal (1 Viewer)

[Incumbent]

If there’s already a Biden economy thread, I can add this there. It could have gone in the Covid thread, but the impact of this would extend well beyond that topic.

Well past time to raise the minimum wage, which hasn’t been increased since 2009.

Biden to seek $15 minimum wage in COVID-19 proposal

President-elect Joe Biden will include a proposal to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 as part of a COVID-19 relief package, the first major legislation of his presidency.Biden is expected to a…

thehill.com

 

[SaintForLife]

FDR disagrees with you.

This FDR?

On February 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signs Executive Order 9066, initiating a controversial World War II policy with lasting consequences for Japanese Americans. The document ordered the removal of resident enemy aliens from parts of the West vaguely identified as military areas.

FDR orders Japanese Americans into internment camps | HISTORY

www-history-com.cdn.ampproject.org

 

[SaintForLife]

If it wasn't supposed to support a family how should people survive then? What is happening is that the "state" aka taxpayers subsidize those businesses because the low pay will allow those workers to apply for foodstamps, free school meals or rent suplements. How is that fair?

An entry level job that requires low skill isn't supposed to be a life long job. It's the kind of job a teenager gets until they get enough skills or education to move on to a better paying job.

Raising the minimum wage would just push places like McDonald's further towards automation.

 

[Dragon]

An entry level job that requires low skill isn't supposed to be a life long job. It's the kind of job a teenager gets until they get enough skills or education to move on to a better paying job.

Raising the minimum wage would just push places like McDonald's further towards automation.

Both can easily be achieved. We have different minimum wages for adults (over 18s) and teenagers. If you want adults to do the job - pay the price. we have traveled alot in the US - think there is about 4 states we haven't visited and most fast food places have adults working there. Some even only adults. The "entry level job" is just a poor excuse for not wanting to pay a living wage

 

[cuddlemonkey]

This FDR?

On February 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signs Executive Order 9066, initiating a controversial World War II policy with lasting consequences for Japanese Americans. The document ordered the removal of resident enemy aliens from parts of the West vaguely identified as military areas.

FDR orders Japanese Americans into internment camps | HISTORY

www-history-com.cdn.ampproject.org

This has nothing to do with the topic. I engaged your post in good faith by pointing out something you said that was untrue. I expect the same level of good faith in return.

 

[Dragon]

Fairness has nothing to do with it. You also have to be careful with your arguments there. I can ask the same thing of universal/single payer healthcare, education, UBI, etc: how is it fair that tax payers would subsidize that?

There may have been a time in the past when working at McDonalds could've supported a family, but markets and economies change, and technology advances; there was a time when people supported families delivering ice to homes and businesses, developing film, cleaning windshields and inflating tires at gas stations, etc.

The lower the skill required and the less physically demanding a job is, the less it'll pay as time goes on.

So basically it is ok that those businesses gets subsidized? That is the end result after all? You may get cheaper food but you'll pay through your taxes anyway. You really can't compare healthcare and education to a meal at a fast food place,,

 

[Saint by the Bay]

FDR disagrees with you.

FDR was at a different point in time. The economy was structured much differently. We had fewer people, young people generally stayed home until marriage and in general he wasn’t referring to minorities who did the overwhelming majority of menial labor jobs. Now we have things like fast food workers, grocery stock folks etc. that really aren’t intended to be careers but rather bridge employment while young, in school or otherwise working to better yourself.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

An entry level job that requires low skill isn't supposed to be a life long job. It's the kind of job a teenager gets until they get enough skills or education to move on to a better paying job.

This is a relatively naive view of the actual condition of the American economy and many of its workers... even in more conservative states like West Virginia. Unless you have a pure libertarian approach something like: 'if people can't continually be promoted through the ranks then they are dead weight and end up unemployed/underemployed and the system just runs over them.' That is, the government should not intervene on their behalf and their welfare should be left in the hands of (lol) religious charities.

 

[SaintForLife]

This has nothing to do with the topic. I engaged your post in good faith by pointing out something you said that was untrue. I expect the same level of good faith in return.

I was just pointing out that FDR wasn't as wise as you claim. What relevance does his opinion have today on this subject?

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

I was just pointing out that FDR wasn't as wise as you claim. What relevance does his opinion have today on this subject?

About as much relevance as a bunch of old racist white guys back in the late 1700's should have in the running of our government.

 

[SaintForLife]

About as much relevance as a bunch of old racist white guys back in the late 1700's should have in the running of our government.

Who wasn't racist in the 1700's based on today's standards?

 

[SystemShock]

So basically it is ok that those businesses gets subsidized? That is the end result after all? You may get cheaper food but you'll pay through your taxes anyway. You really can't compare healthcare and education to a meal at a fast food place,,

I am not comparing healthcare and education to a meal at a fast food place. That's is a gross misinterpretation of what I said. And cheaper food has nothing to do with it. However, if you are going to object to subsidizing one industry with tax payers' money through social services (which for the record I think it is the wrong way to look at it) then you would object to subsidizing any industry, right? By your logic, if a government provides free healthcare and education ( which would qualify as social services) financed through tax payers' money, it follows that they are subsidizing every industry whose employees receive free healthcare and education from the government.

 

[SystemShock]

This is a relatively naive view of the actual condition of the American economy and many of its workers... even in more conservative states like West Virginia. Unless you have a pure libertarian approach something like: 'if people can't continually be promoted through the ranks then they are dead weight and end up unemployed/underemployed and the system just runs over them.' That is, the government should not intervene on their behalf and their welfare should be left in the hands of (lol) religious charities.

I don't think it is a naive view, bu rather, a realistic view of how things work in our economy today, whether we like it or not. I am not saying it is right, or that we can't do better, but that's the way it is.

 

[zztop]

So when I think of small business, I think of basically one person, or a family running and operating a business on their own. Maybe my confusion comes from what exactly is defined as a small business. Maybe we all have different ideas about what is defined as small business. For me there isn't many employees, so the worry about not being able to afford to pay workers $15 doesn't make a lot of sense. I am probably very wrong in my thinking lol. So my other question is, has there been any studies, or actual real-world-results that point to elevating everyone (essentially in poverty) to a higher minimum wage will kill off a lot of small businesses? For me I think there is a lot of evidence that trickle down economics doesn't work, but what about the other direction? I admit I am too lazy to look this up myself haha, but at least here in this country we have had decades of the rich getting richer and that wealth doesn't trickle down to us common folk. so based on that alone, I don't see the harm is attempting something different.

 

[RobF]

FDR was at a different point in time. The economy was structured much differently. We had fewer people, young people generally stayed home until marriage and in general he wasn’t referring to minorities who did the overwhelming majority of menial labor jobs. Now we have things like fast food workers, grocery stock folks etc. that really aren’t intended to be careers but rather bridge employment while young, in school or otherwise working to better yourself.

It seems like there are a ton of assumptions embedded in that one paragraph.

For example, there's the assumption of an economy that is structured that way, with a progressive career path for everyone. Is that reality? Is the economy actually structured so that for every single young person, in school or otherwise working to better themselves working as a fast food worker, or grocery shelf stacker, etc., there are also enough higher level jobs? That is, to put it another way, as that generation ages, are there consistently the same number of higher skilled jobs as there were entry level jobs, so that they can all move up in life?

We don't have fully managed economies, so they're not deliberately set up like that. Is there something that forces them to be so, or are they, in reality, not? And if not, isn't treating those jobs - which from my point of view are some of the most essential, fundamental jobs there are in their nature, given the importance of getting food to people - as work that isn't valuable enough to be able to live off inherently wrong?

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Who wasn't racist in the 1700's based on today's standards?

I don't dispute that. I was questioning the utility of conservatives looking to those men to solve modern exigencies just as you questioned the wisdom of looking to FDR.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

I don't think it is a naive view, bu rather, a realistic view of how things work in our economy today, whether we like it or not. I am not saying it is right, or that we can't do better, but that's the way it is.

My point was SFL seemed to suggest there are certain jobs that are not 'intended' for, shall we say, 'mature' workers. That might be a fine theory to have in a graduate seminar class but the reality of the world we live in is quite different. And we will never be able to ensure everyone has a 'career' where they excel and advance. There will always be older people who have to work jobs that some consider 'entry-level.' I'd rather address it from a practical standpoint of raising their wages to better their quality of life as opposed to what I think is an unrealistic approach of finding a way to advance those people through the corporate ladder.

To paraphrase George Costanza, we live in a society.




I've had family members grumble about government regulation against the free market: they had success so why can't other people? The reality is if you give people nothing then eventually they will riot and take it from you.

 

[SaintForLife]

I don't dispute that. I was questioning the utility of conservatives looking to those men to solve modern exigencies just as you questioned the wisdom of looking to FDR.

There's quite a big difference between our Constitution and the opinion of a former President.

 

[SystemShock]

It seems like there are a ton of assumptions embedded in that one paragraph.

For example, there's the assumption of an economy that is structured that way, with a progressive career path for everyone. Is that reality? Is the economy actually structured so that for every single young person, in school or otherwise working to better themselves working as a fast food worker, or grocery shelf stacker, etc., there are also enough higher level jobs? That is, to put it another way, as that generation ages, are there consistently the same number of higher skilled jobs as there were entry level jobs, so that they can all move up in life?

We don't have fully managed economies, so they're not deliberately set up like that. Is there something that forces them to be so, or are they, in reality, not? And if not, isn't treating those jobs - which from my point of view are some of the most essential, fundamental jobs there are in their nature, given the importance of getting food to people - as work that isn't valuable enough to be able to live off inherently wrong?

There are no assumptions in that paragraph. It's just a high level description of how things used to be. It does have, however, certain implications about society, markets, and the economy prevalent during the time FDR was president... and that's without even mentioning prohibition, the Great Depression, and WWII and the impact they had on the economy and the workforce during FDR's tenure as POTUS..

You mention fast food workers and shelf stackers.. well, there were no fast food workers when FDR was alive, since there was no "fast food". The overwhelming majority of shelf stackers stacked shelves in their parents' store, as very few chains of gigantic supermarkets/superstores existed. Obviously, there was no tech industry to speak of. You could make a living with just a high school diploma, as attending college was more of a privilege. And the definitions of "quality of life" and "standard of living" were very different as well.

I am no historian or economist, but I think it is so obvious, anyone can put 2 + 2 together: the U.S. economy started to transform after The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 ( GI Bill) was passed, and the U.S. made some very smart financial/business moves domestically and around the world in the aftermath of WWII. The GI Bill created a middle class with college degrees, and that's when unskilled labor started its descent in what you see in today's economy. It also changed the definition of what "standard of living" is.