General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs a $50 an hour minimum wage too much?
Thats what Barbara Lee is advocating for in California. Honestly interested in opinions on this. It would certainly help pull many people out of poverty.
https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/poverty/4464365-50-minimum-wage-heres-what-us-senate-candidates-for-california-say/amp/

CrispyQ
(39,029 posts)bamagal62
(3,749 posts)makes $70,000 in NYC and can barely afford a studio apartment. And, she has a great degree from a top 25 university. She lived at home for a year, commuted from New Jersey, and saved her salary so that she could have a buffer to afford a small studio in Manhattan. So, yes, maybe.
LakeArenal
(29,936 posts)But I dont see it going that far in any major metropolitan area.
So I guess I vote no to $50 per hour being too much.
ProfessorGAC
(71,535 posts)The median salary for a middle school teacher here is $69k.
https://www.salary.com/research/salary/alternate/middle-school-teacher-salary/chicago-il
LakeArenal
(29,936 posts)ProfessorGAC
(71,535 posts)It sure doesn't address my question.
whathehell
(30,029 posts)is the answer to your question.
ProfessorGAC
(71,535 posts)Since I lived here my whole life & there's a bunch of people here! Like 9 million of us!
whathehell
(30,029 posts)
msongs
(70,594 posts)kelly1mm
(5,581 posts)MOMFUDSKI
(7,080 posts)It is way past time to share the wealth.
Silent3
(15,909 posts)It's much higher than many people with degrees make, and it's way more than I think is needed for basic living in many areas of California.
Admittedly, from what I hear at least (I'm not a CA resident), $50/hr (or $100K/yr) might be what you need to afford to live in some of CA's urban areas, especially in and around San Francisco, where housing and rent are astronomical.
That doesn't seem to be the kind of thing a minimum wage increase of that magnitude would fix, however. I imagine such an increase would only set off an insane inflationary spiral in the housing and rent markets.
BigDemVoter
(4,574 posts)I work in a hospital, and our nurses' aides make approximately $38/hour. . . .
Joinfortmill
(17,200 posts)TexasDem69
(2,317 posts)Thats a ridiculous proposal that wouldnt be taken seriously in 99% of the country. People are already complaining about food priceswhat do you think McDonalds would have to charge for a hamburger to pay its employees $50 an hour?
MOMFUDSKI
(7,080 posts)pay the top bananas LESS. Simple. Share the wealth.
TexasDem69
(2,317 posts)In the real world.
MOMFUDSKI
(7,080 posts)I am 76 years old. I have seen it.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)$100 an hour?
Autumn
(47,251 posts)WarGamer
(16,322 posts)$50/hour wages means $5000 monthly rent and $20 Big Macs...
It's not about wages... it's about wages PLUS cost of living.
MOMFUDSKI
(7,080 posts)obscene paychecks to the top 5%.
WarGamer
(16,322 posts)And TBH... I saw a graphic once that said the CEO of a big Fortune 500 company (dont remember which one) could work for FREE... and if his former salary was distributed to all the employees equally... it's be like 89 cents a week per employee.
ProfessorGAC
(71,535 posts)It's not huge either way, but Iger's last year at Disney paid him just under $32 million total compensation.
In your example, it would be closer to $3 a week.
All that detail aside, remember that if the CEO took a 2/3rds cut, so would the COO, CFO, CIO, General Counsel, CMO, & so on.
Then the next layer of EVPs, the the next layer of VPs, then senior directors...
Those lower levels might take smaller reductions but the accumulation becomes meaningful.
Not gigantic, but perhaps meaningful.
Silent3
(15,909 posts)...the math won't work out for paying everyone $50/hr in nearly any business that has a large number of employees.
While raising wages doesn't always result in higher prices or inflation, it can do that, and if you're making a HUGE jump from $15 to $50/hour those negative effects will almost certainly kick in.
The high rents and housing prices in places like San Francisco are mostly a simple supply and demand problem (exacerbated some by extraneous influences, like investors buying up properties).
Give people more more to pay for rent and buy houses, and the supply of housing isn't going to suddenly expand -- it may not even slowly expand very much. You'll have more dollars chasing the same quantity of goods, and pricing will soar.
MOMFUDSKI
(7,080 posts)$15.50 per hour and that todays Trucker wage has even remotely kept up?
Silent3
(15,909 posts)Teamsters don't make minimum wage. No too many Teamsters are trying to live in the SF Bay area.
Happy Hoosier
(8,737 posts)In most states, it takes a household income of a bit over $200K to be in the top 5%. Even in CA, it was only a bit over $250K in 2021. That doesn't strike me as particularly "obscene."
Maybe your beef is with the top 1%?
IMO, this proposal doesn't make any sense. It would dramatically increase the costs of basic services all over the state. Imagine what paying a car mechanic would cost if each one is making at least $100K a year in today's money.
Caliman73
(11,767 posts)California is a pretty diverse state both in terms of the population, politics, and economy. While the Democratic Party has been pretty dominant over the last decade, we have some VERY RED parts of the state. We have some super rich areas and some extremely poor areas. A 50 dollar minimum wage would be "enough" in some of the Bay Area Counties (San Francisco, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa) but even other Bay Area counties would likely not be able to sustain that like Solano, Sonoma, and Napa County. I live in Santa Cruz County and hopes of being able to buy a home or even afford rent are rough. Other parts of the state are much cheaper to live in $50 dollars an hours would likely let you live like a king in some of the Northern counties the San Joaquin Valley and the Inland Empire.
The thing is we need to think about what a "Living Wage" looks like in the various parts of the state. Those things need to be examined regionally. California's GDP hovers around the 5th to 7th in the world. We produce A LOT, but the distribution of the economic benefits, as in the country as a whole, is really bad. We have some of the highest income and wealth inequality in the nation.
I don't think that $50 an hour is politically or economically feasible in many parts of the state. I admire Lee for being bold though, and not backing down.
Yavin4
(36,926 posts)1. Build more affordable housing.
2. Build more public transportation systems that connect large cities as well as within large cities
The problem with CA is that it's designed for super wealthy people bc you need to be super wealthy to afford a home and a reliable car. If you cannot afford these things, then living there becomes cost prohibitive unless you severely lower your lifestyle by living with roommates or live in your car.
Ms. Toad
(35,894 posts)I have never earned $50/hour. Most recently, with a bachelor's degree, master's degree, and a JD, I earned $32/hour. (I have recently retired, and expect to live comfortably on the money I saved on my considerably-below-minimum-wage salaries.) My peak wage was $80/hour.
$50/hour is not a minimum wage. It is, I believe, well more than average. Making it a minimum wage would result in significant inflation in things people need to live (groceries, e.g.), so that those living on money they saved while working will be significantly burdened.
Midnight Writer
(23,446 posts)Set a Finish Line for wealth accumulation. Hit the ceiling and keep working if you want, but the tax on future earnings that take you over the max, including investment income, will be 100%.
Then give them a knightship or lordship or some other phony, ceremonial title, thank them for their contribution,
I have no problem with folks of superior accomplishment getting rich. But people who are worth 100, 200 billion dollars have too much power. That level of wealth accumulation is bad for our democracy and our national welfare.
redqueen
(115,177 posts)Not every business is insanely profitable.
And in some parts of CA that may be considered a living wage, but in others it's surely better than that. And most definitely far better in other parts of the country.
One thing it would definitely do is cause more large corporations to move out of CA. And the small businesses that can't move would suffer. As would CA's tax base.
Is this some election year chum to throw at voters or is she actually serious?
I sincerely hope Katie Porter wins.
Calculating
(2,998 posts)This would basically just send all prices way up and trigger more automation.
Melon
(218 posts)brush
(58,774 posts)Hardly any. And what corps even pay that to entry-level to mid-manager positions?
MichMan
(14,106 posts)It isn't remotely feasible.
kelly1mm
(5,581 posts)CA's minimum wage, unless she votes to increase the Federal minimum wage to more than the current $16 per hour CA minimum wage. Why are candidates for the US Senate talking about CA state minimum wage, unless she wants to raise the federal minimum to $50 per hour?
DJ Synikus Makisimus
(906 posts)$100K/yr is a nice middle-income living where I live now. It represents a borderline-desperation income where I used to live. That, of course, also depends on how many folks are in your family or living circumstance, and how many are bringing in money. However, if you take a look at the cost of housing, especially rentals in major California cities, Lee's proposal is not at all excessive. It's probably close to a bare minimum in San Francisco, Greater Los Angeles, and San Diego, especially for a single person living alone, many of whom work two or three jobs to stay afloat.
One of the problems with a "minimum wage" is that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work well. The same thing is true for seniors living on Social Security. What's OK-to-nice in rural Kentucky isn't OK in New York City or Seattle. Lots of advocates have been talking about a "living wage" and a "living income" for over a decade now. Perhaps it's time we all catch up. One way to do it may be to apply the Federal Government's COLA - a tax-free adjustment to one's income that differs by locale. For example, in Honolulu it's (or at least it was when I collected it) 20%.
doc03
(37,396 posts)leftstreet
(36,457 posts)MichMan
(14,106 posts)leftstreet
(36,457 posts)MichMan
(14,106 posts)Each vehicle therefore had $11 in cost attributed to his salary. Given that the average transaction price for each one was approx. $55,000, that meant that 0.02% of the price of each vehicle went to the CEO in compensation.
Simple mathematics.
Zeitghost
(4,557 posts)for $200.
ecstatic
(34,604 posts)Not to mention alienating business owners, many of whom are Democratic.
And what about teen employees? You basically destroyed their chances of working anywhere.
And what about the state of California? Keep in mind they will be the biggest employer and payer. Can they afford salaries when the minimum wage is $50 an hour? Can they pay for healthcare provider services like nursing homes and home health care with that minimum wage?
If they can make that work then by all means, go for it. I'm really impressed!
limbicnuminousity
(1,411 posts)until there are price controls in place on rent, utilities, food, medicine, and fuel. We can't talk about an appropriate minimum when expenses are uncontrolled.
Mark.b2
(527 posts)Going to $50/hour would exacerbate the problem. I could take you to three establishments right now with signs asking for patience from customers because they are having to operate with fewer employees. My main pharmacy is now open from only 10AM until 7PM. The manager told me they are just open one shift now. I asked her if they had lost business. She said they hadn't, but they are busier while their open. Makes sense.
While employees who are fortunate to have a job are earning more, there are just fewer of them working. Makes sense.
Talking to a couple teenage nieces over the holidays, they were telling most of their high school friends don't have jobs. If business have to pay $15/hour or higher, they dont want to spend that much on a 10th grader. They want someone with more experience if they have to pay so much more. Makes sense.
I certainly haven't seen the quality of the service I get at restaurants, stores, movie theaters and the like improve with the improved minimum wage. It's gone down.
Whatever the minimum is, there needs to be an allowance for something less so unexperienced employees can learn and earn something more commensurate with their skill level. I don't know the answer, but maybe there's an age requirement to go along with the maximum minimum wage.
W_HAMILTON
(8,704 posts)Obviously laws vary by state, but here is the federal law, which many states piggyback off of for their state minimum wage laws:
...
Full-Time Student Program
This program is for full-time students employed in retail or service stores, agriculture, or colleges and universities. The employer that hires students can obtain a certificate from the Department of Labor which allows the student to be paid not less than 85 percent of the minimum wage. The certificate limits the hours that the student may work to 8 hours in a day and no more than 20 hours a week when school is in session and 40 hours when school is out, and requires the employer to follow all child labor laws. Once students graduate or leave school for good, they must be paid at least the Federal minimum wage.
Taken from: https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/whd/flsa/docs/wages.asp#:~:text=Full%2DTime%20Student%20Program&text=The%20employer%20that%20hires%20students,percent%20of%20the%20minimum%20wage.
So, if anything, employers in many states are actually incentivized to hire teenage students as employees since they can legally pay them less than other workers.
DFW
(57,177 posts)A small business owner with between five and ten employees makes his or her calculations very carefully. If the business makes enough to cover expenses, then those employees continue to have jobs. If a good part of those expenses (plus increased Social Security taxes plus increased payroll taxes) triple, many small businesses will not be able to meet those expenses. They will fail and close. The employees lose their jobs and insurance, while the State loses out on the taxes generated by the small business being there.
A large corporation can far more easily move out of state than ten thousand small businesses can. Instead of pointing a finger at one CEO gazillionaire, ask five million people if its worth it to be unemployed, and unable to afford even the food they buy now. $50 an hour isnt so great if there are no employers left who can pay it.
Raine
(30,674 posts)it along to customers who eventually are going to refuse to pay so much for a stupid hamburger. The corporations will decide the employee pay is costing them business. In the end they will replace the worker with a robot.
pansypoo53219
(21,914 posts)Mike Niendorff
(3,585 posts)A better question would be:
"Should minimum wage workers pay higher effective tax rates than multi-millionaire investors, hedge fund managers and billionaire CEOs?"
Because that's where we are right now.
If we start to rebalance our tax code, and undo the tax-shift the Republicans have been forcing down our throats for 40+ years, then maybe we can address the "fair minimum wage" question with a little more perspective.
MDN
muriel_volestrangler
(103,007 posts)I suspect I'd disagree. There was a report last year that called $104k "low income" in San Francisco, but that said in it "the typical monthly asking rent in the San Francisco metro area is $3,150". OK, "typical" is not what you base minimum wage on. Any "typical" dwelling can have 2 earning people in; so that's $18,900 a year on rent. Other costs of living may be a bit more than other parts of the USA, but not that much more; I think you can say $35,000 take home would be OK. I'll leave someone who knows US and California taxes to work that to a pre-tax hourly rate.
samnsara
(18,386 posts)..then its just a starter..
Bettie
(17,719 posts)I mean, there are people in DC right now who think 7.25 is too high and long for no min wage, so they can pay people a nickel a day and maybe less if they want to.
Melon
(218 posts)And further increase population flight from California.
Johnny2X2X
(22,243 posts)$50 is too high.
There has to be an entry level wage, it has to be a living wage, but $50 is too high IMO.
But I also think the $15 minimum wage push is also antiquated already. $20 an hour is more appropriate now, but it must be pegged to CPI whatever it ends up being.
Torchlight
(4,253 posts)That being the chief executives (Chris Kempczinsk) current pay. I think it's often measurably assistive to look at the top as well as the bottom for insight into context and contrast.
elocs
(23,240 posts)Prices and the cost of living chase wages and the result would spiraling inflation and eventually a call for $100. The simple truth is that not every job merits being paid at least $50/hour.