JRP3
Hyperactive Member
It would already be at that level if it kept up with inflation and productivity, and we'd have millions more people with disposable income to boost the economy instead of scraping by in poverty.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Green New Deal
- Thread starter mspohr
- Start date
- Status
juliusa
Active Member
juliusa
Active Member
Wouldn't $7.25 in 2009 adjusted for inflation be about $9.00 today?
Gas tax of $.184 per gallon in 1993 adjusted for inflation would be about $.34 today.
Why do the same people want the minimum wage raised/indexed to keep up with inflation, but not the gasoline tax? I understand the White House rejected the gas tax increase called for in the bi-partisan infrastructure proposal.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Because it punishes lower income people? But sure if you first bump the minimum wage to allow people to get out of poverty then we can talk about regressive taxes.
juliusa
Active Member
We are not talking about raising the gasoline tax - just keeping it the same in real terms as it was when enacted. The minimum wage, on the other hand, we are talking about raising - not keeping the same as when enacted which would be $9.
The European socialism model has a much higher gasoline tax than in the US. Rich Americans drive large vehicles and have almost twice the number of vehicles per capita as the impoverished Europeans - surely we can afford a higher tax on gasoline.
Higher energy cost is a core part of the green new deal, particularly higher costs for carbon fuels. The whole premise of the gnd is to use government to force the use of higher cost renewable energy. Sure the "real" costs are lower. But if you want to talk "real" costs, then an increase in the gasoline tax by $1 a gallon will cost everyone less because it will lower consumption, therefore lower health care costs and the cost of global warming. It will cost less and save the world.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Minimum wage was enacted in 1938, not 2009, and you seem to want to pretend that the minimum wage in 2009 had already kept up with inflation and productivity, though you keep ignoring the productivity part.
CORRECTION: This is What Minimum Wage Would Be If It Kept Pace with Productivity
Until 1968, the minimum wage not only kept pace with inflation, it rose in step with productivity growth. The logic is straightforward; we expect that wages in general will rise in step with productivity growth. For workers at the bottom to share in the overall improvement in society’s living...
cepr.net
juliusa
Active Member
Yep - it was $.25 then. That same $.25 would be less than $5 today. So minimum wage has gone up more than inflation. For one hours' work today at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 a person can buy more food, clothing, housing, cell phones, cable tv, cars, gasoline, health care than they could in 1938 for one hours' work at the federal minimum wage of $.25.
Reminder - this is where the discussion on minimum wage and inflation started - notice "increased along with the dollar" (inflation) and "last time the minimum wage was set" (2009). This following statement is pure nonsense.
Last edited:
Yes, that wording on inflation when it should have been productivity was not correct.
The argument for a significantly higher minimum wage uses productivity. That probably is a bit too generous but a reasonable argument.
That a working person living today should be happy that they are doing better than someone in 1938 (by a relatively small amount) is not really a reasonable argument.
$15 hits a balance between inflation and productivity. A middle ground so to speak. Now, which party is opposed to that? It is all better proof that our system of governing is pretty broken that we can't be close to $15 today.
The argument for a significantly higher minimum wage uses productivity. That probably is a bit too generous but a reasonable argument.
That a working person living today should be happy that they are doing better than someone in 1938 (by a relatively small amount) is not really a reasonable argument.
$15 hits a balance between inflation and productivity. A middle ground so to speak. Now, which party is opposed to that? It is all better proof that our system of governing is pretty broken that we can't be close to $15 today.
juliusa
Active Member
The party that believes a national minimum wage is not necessary and it should be set by states since not all states are the same, that minimum wage that is too high cause some people to be priced out of a job, and that higher minimum wages increase the jobs that will be eliminated through automation.
Simply a difference in philosophy - just like some want socialism and some want capitalism. Philosophy.
American Workers Earn About Half What They Deserve
Capital & Main explores how trillions of dollars are diverted toward the super wealthy.
capitalandmain.com
A full-time worker currently earning the national median wage of $50,000 would be making close to $100,000 now — if the country’s economic growth had continued to be shared over the last 45 years the way it was in the decades after World War II. This income transfer has had a devastating impact on workers at all levels — the poor, the working class, the middle class and even parts of the upper-middle class — making it harder to pay the rent, put groceries on the table and raise a family. It has also left tens of millions of Americans vulnerable to surprise expenses like the breakdown of their vehicle or unexpected medical expenses. In the big picture, the loss of relative income has affected people’s ability to pay fast rising housing costs, buy homes, pay off old mortgages or even fend off bankruptcy.
The American economy is perilously fragile. Concentration of wealth is to blame | Robert Reich
Policymakers and the media are paying too much attention to how quickly the US economy will emerge from the pandemic-induced recession, and not nearly enough to the nation’s deeper structural problem – the huge imbalance of wealth that could enfeeble the economy for years.
It’s not simply a matter of an adequate “stimulus”. The $2,000 checks contained in the American Rescue Plan have already been distributed and extra unemployment benefits will soon expire. Consumer spending will be propped up as employers add to their payrolls. Biden’s spending plans, if enacted, will also help keep consumers afloat for a time. But the underlying imbalance will remain. Most people’s wages will still be too low and too much of the economy’s gains will continue to accumulate at the top, for total consumer demand to be adequate. Years ago, Marriner Eccles, chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1934 to 1948, explained that the Great Depression occurred because the buying power of Americans fell far short of what the economy could produce. He blamed the increasing concentration of wealth at the top.It’s not simply a matter of an adequate “stimulus”. The $2,000 checks contained in the American Rescue Plan have already been distributed and extra unemployment benefits will soon expire. Consumer spending will be propped up as employers add to their payrolls. Biden’s spending plans, if enacted, will also help keep consumers afloat for a time. But the underlying imbalance will remain. Most people’s wages will still be too low and too much of the economy’s gains will continue to accumulate at the top, for total consumer demand to be adequate. Years ago, Marriner Eccles, chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1934 to 1948, explained that the Great Depression occurred because the buying power of Americans fell far short of what the economy could produce. He blamed the increasing concentration of wealth at the top.
Biden’s “stimulus” programs are fine, but temporary. The most important economic reform would be to correct this structural imbalance by reducing monopoly power, strengthening unions, and getting big money out of politics. Until the structural imbalance is remedied, the American economy will remain perilously fragile. It will also be vulnerable to the next demagogue wielding anger and resentment as substitutes for real reform.
Policymakers and the media are paying too much attention to how quickly the US economy will emerge from the pandemic-induced recession, and not nearly enough to the nation’s deeper structural problem – the huge imbalance of wealth that could enfeeble the economy for years.
It’s not simply a matter of an adequate “stimulus”. The $2,000 checks contained in the American Rescue Plan have already been distributed and extra unemployment benefits will soon expire. Consumer spending will be propped up as employers add to their payrolls. Biden’s spending plans, if enacted, will also help keep consumers afloat for a time. But the underlying imbalance will remain. Most people’s wages will still be too low and too much of the economy’s gains will continue to accumulate at the top, for total consumer demand to be adequate. Years ago, Marriner Eccles, chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1934 to 1948, explained that the Great Depression occurred because the buying power of Americans fell far short of what the economy could produce. He blamed the increasing concentration of wealth at the top.It’s not simply a matter of an adequate “stimulus”. The $2,000 checks contained in the American Rescue Plan have already been distributed and extra unemployment benefits will soon expire. Consumer spending will be propped up as employers add to their payrolls. Biden’s spending plans, if enacted, will also help keep consumers afloat for a time. But the underlying imbalance will remain. Most people’s wages will still be too low and too much of the economy’s gains will continue to accumulate at the top, for total consumer demand to be adequate. Years ago, Marriner Eccles, chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1934 to 1948, explained that the Great Depression occurred because the buying power of Americans fell far short of what the economy could produce. He blamed the increasing concentration of wealth at the top.
Biden’s “stimulus” programs are fine, but temporary. The most important economic reform would be to correct this structural imbalance by reducing monopoly power, strengthening unions, and getting big money out of politics. Until the structural imbalance is remedied, the American economy will remain perilously fragile. It will also be vulnerable to the next demagogue wielding anger and resentment as substitutes for real reform.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Yes, some people have a bizarre obsession with keeping consumers as poor as possible which limits their ability to purchase products, limiting economic growth. We have ample evidence that this is a flawed concept yet some insist on clinging to it. Depressed wages have not stopped advances in automation nor will increased wages accelerate it. The pace of technology will dictate it and we will have to come to terms with the fact that there will eventually not be enough jobs for all the people.
That's incorrect. The more salaries increase, the more companies invest in capital to eliminate labor. Think about all the grocery stores (and other retailers) who have introduced self-check out registers. No clerk needed. Or, fast food places that have encourage you to order from a kiosk or your phone app -- faster, yes, but also eliminates a register clerk. Major manufacturers have been replacing labor with robots for years; one cost advantage of Tesla's operation. It's a simple cost-benefit calculation that any MBA student can do.
So yes, increasing salaries benefits those that keep their jobs, but also hurts those that get eliminated as their salary goes to zero. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office even concluded that raising the minimum wage to $15: "[e]mployment would be reduced for 1.4 million workers."
It's how the powerful keep in power. If your main concern is getting enough food, clothing, and shelter for the next week, you aren't going to be voting or writing letters to your "elected" official.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Yes but the technology has to be able to accomplish the task. Remember Elon trying to over automate vehicle production and failing? It will happen when the technology is ready and not before. Sure cost comes into play as well but that just affects the timing of the inevitable.
juliusa
Active Member
Too bad you did not read what I wrote. Simply a difference in philosophy. Neither are right or wrong. Better or worse is a matter of opinion.
Socialism and capitalism are a difference in philosophy. Neither are right or wrong. Better or worse is a matter of opinion.
Centrally managed economy or free markets. Neither are right or wrong. Better or worse is a matter of opinion.
Freedom, self-reliance, and individual responsibility or government management and responsibility of every aspect of one's life. Neither are right or wrong. Better or worse is a matter of opinion.
juliusa
Active Member
For some context: that's less than 1% of the USA working population, over 40% of whom earn less than $15/hour. So, it would reduce available employment for the low-paid by less than 2.5%,
Easy to say, particularly by those that have work-from-home-type jobs. OTOH, if you are one of those 1.4 million who just lost a job and can't find work bcos the feds purposely priced you out of the market.....
- Status
Similar threads
