If Republicans will be forced to compromise on Minimum Wage...

[cthulu2016]

...then why start the negotiations at $10.10?

I get that $10.10 is a four digit number begging to be shaved down to a three digit number. I am familiar with negotiation and asking price and such.

But the minimum wage SHOULD be somewhere in the $12-$14 range. And today, not eventually.

So you might as well at least PROPOSE the optimal policy.

Yes, the Republicans won't go for it.

But they aren't going to go for the first thing out of your mouth in ANY scenario. Ever.


I like Obama. I think Obama has been a good president. My number one problem with Obama, every step of the way these last five years is, in economic matters, a refusal to PROPOSE the optimal policy.

The right answer is always swept off the table pre-emptively, before the talking even starts.

And somehow $8.50 will become EVIL and $9.50 will become GOOD and we will have filibusters and drama and protests over which of two grossly suboptimal outcomes to settle for.

And if virtue trimuphs and $9.50 wins then we will have "fixed" a thing by increasing the buying power of the minimum wage from 42% of what it was when I was a kid to 48% of what it was when I was a kid. (Those numbers are not calculated. I am throwing them out rhetorically to frame the problem.)

[cthulu2016]

1. .

[geek tragedy]

2. Because the Republicans won't compromise. Minimum wage will not be increased until

we get a Democrat back in the Speaker's chair. So, the proposal is in essence positioning for public opinion in an attempt to look as mainstream/reasonable/in touch with the people as possible.

[okaawhatever]

3. Because that number can't honestly be disputed. When the government looked at the numbers, $10.10

represents what the minimum wage would be if it kept pace with inflation. In fact, we're not raising the minimum wage, we're adjusting it for inflation. That is a huge point. Businesses lose a lot of their argument about losing profits when the number clearly reflects that busineses have been making more money because they've been paying less for labor that they traditionally have.

The $10.10 number is also an odd number which begs the question, why not just $10? To which the answer is, because that is the number it would be had it kept pace with inflation, same as the military pay and other wages.

The key to passage is to get people to understand it isn't a giveaway, it's simply adjusting for inflation because Congress hasn't done it's job. It's also why companies have been able to make so much money, and why the tax base is down and food stamps are up. If the Republicans hadn't co-opted the definition of common sense for their radical ideas, one would say "adjusting the minimum wage for inflation" is common sense.