Why not index the minumum wage against inflation?

[Joe Bacon]

We index Social Security benefits against inflation. Why not do the same thing automatically to the minimum wage?

Why do we give retired workers a benefit that we deny those who work?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. workers are losers to be exploited to the max

so that the rich investor class can enjoy the luxuries they are entitled to by rights of their station. :sarcasm:

[madrchsod]

2. ?????

the last time the american workers had something like this was in the 70`s and enforced by union contracts. i got a cost of living increase every three months when inflation rose above 1 %..those were the days,yes those were the days before the democrats and republicans sold their parties to the corporate rulers. the american workers have never recovered by the sell out.

[Joe Bacon]

4. Which is why I would like to see a Democrat introduce this idea.

I would love to see Harry Reid propose this in the Senate and paint the Republicans into a corner over it! Why wait Ten years for Congress to increase the minimum wage? Just do it automatically at the start of the year!

[OzarkDem]

13. The downside of those years

was that it contributed to a spiral in inflation. Back then, COLA increases were automatic for wages, social security, etc. Combined with rising energy prices from the Arab oil embargo and automatic increases in transportation prices, it all sort of snowballed.

[unblock]

3. why not index the minimum wage to the maximum wage?

i kinda like the idea that the ceo shouldn't be getting more pay than 500 fellow workers.

[Joe Bacon]

5. So do I. BUT I wonder if it is feasible?

I wonder how we can frame a maximum wage concept without the Right Wing BS machine spitting up?

[unblock]

10. well one thing for sure, we can't call it the "maximum" wage

because people hate the idea of government limits on success, which is what that makes it sound like.

maybe "employee profit sharing" or "the 'rising tide lifts all boats' act".

[anewdeal]

22. because its a bad idea

it is a limit on success. I'm completely for a higher minimum wage, but the best way to that it to *raise the minimum wage*

[unblock]

24. it's not a limit on success

it's a limit on grabbing more than your fair share of success.
the point is that if your team achieved success with the help of other employees, it's not fair to take a disproportionate share of the fruits of success. you couldn't have done it without them, yet you go without them when you go to collect your rewards?

that's just not right.

and it doesn't limit success. it just means that you have to share it with the team that helped you earn it.

[anewdeal]

29. having to share

what percentage of YOUR earnings should you have to share with the person who made your lunch. 50%? After all, if you didn't eat you couldn't do ANY work. The oil companies deserve 50% of YOUR earnings too, because without gas, you couldn't even drive to work.

[unblock]

31. rofl! i think that's close to the system we have now!

what with the costs of basic things skyrocketting - health care, gas, food, etc.
the more i earn, the more corporations raise their prices to suck my wallet clean.

it must be a corollary of murphy's law: the cost of necessities inflate to consume all available paychecks. not to mention all available credit from home equity lending....

[Lib Grrrrl]

33. Now You Are Just Being Assidying!

One more stupid comeback like that and my Ignore Zapper takes you out.

[Lib Grrrrl]

32. Damn Right!! n/t

[rinsd]

34. I am curious

"the point is that if your team achieved success with the help of other employees, it's not fair to take a disproportionate share of the fruits of success. you couldn't have done it without them, yet you go without them when you go to collect your rewards?"

How would you determine something like employee contribution? And then what would be the remedy in terms of determining maximum salary?

[unblock]

35. i'm not sure it's worth the bother, but here are some ideas:

i think this is a political non-starter, much like another favorite of mine -- taxing wealth instead of income. nice in theory, but it'll never happen.

be that as it may, the idea was just that if the corporation wants to pay their ceo a brazilian dollars per hour, then any other employee much be paid at least, say, one percent of that. so if you want to pay your line workers $6.00/hr, then you can't pay your ceo more than $600.00/hr. if you want to give your ceo a raise to $700/hr, no problem, you just also have to give those line workers a raise to $7/hr.

obviously there would have to be a lot of careful rules to prevent circumventing the rule by paying bonus instead of salary, or by deferring salary into a different year, or by getting temps and contractors instead of employees.

[rinsd]

36. Thank you

It is likely a political non-starter but appreciate you sharing your thoughts.

[flvegan]

6. Because

as inflation rose (or, ha ha, fell), one would need to reestablish the minimum wage, every time...up, down...

Besides, it's "minimum" wage for a reason. They don't care how it might tie in to the wealth of our economy. It's largely a bone thrown to those earning it to make them feel protected. A benchmark that those paying it care little about until it rears it's ugly head asking to be increased.

[Eugene]

7. Activists are trying to index minimum wage on the state level.

Ballot measures that increase state minimum wages and index them to inflation
are circulating or pending in several states including Arizona, Missouri, Montana,
Nevada, and Oklahoma. Efforts are underway in many state legislatures too.

[stevedeshazer]

8. We already do

At least here in Oregon:

<snip>

Q. What is the minimum wage in Oregon?
A. Effective January 1, 2006, the Oregon minimum wage increased by 25 cents to $7.50 per hour. ORS 653.025.

This increase is a result of the passage of Ballot Measure 25, approved by Oregon voters on November 5, 2002. The minimum wage had been at $6.50 per hour since January 1, 1999, but Measure 25 raised the wage to $6.90 effective January 1, 2003 and also provided for annual indexing for calendar year 2004 and beyond.

Measure 25 requires the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries to calculate an annual adjustment to the minimum wage each September for the following calendar year. The annual adjustment is based on any increase during the previous 12 months in the U.S. City Average Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for All Items.

Under the new law, the minimum wage is to be rounded to the nearest five cents and to take effect on January 1 of the year following each adjustment.

--

source: http://www.oregon.gov/BOLI/TA/T_FAQ_Min-wage2005.shtml

[Poppyseedman]

9. Minimum wage affects only 2.5% of the population at any given time

Indexing it to inflation would be at best a symbolic gesture.

The reason why retired workers have their SS indexed to inflation is because their ability to improve their income is nil, as for workers who currently earn minimum wage, they can if they want to improve their lot in life in almost every situation by either continue to work hard or improve their skills.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005tbls.htm

Link for the 2.5% figure

[politicat]

17. But there are other workers who have their incomes based upon min.

For instance: A travel agent is usually guaranteed X+min wage, or commission, whichever is greater. When the MW goes up, a lot of temp agencies have to raise their mid-level rates because they can't get skilled workers for what was twice the MW, but is now only 1.5x the MW.

MW is like the waterline on a ship. When it goes up (the ship is riding lightly) we all do better. When it's low in comparison to other wages, it drags everyone down.

And the work hard, improve skills... that's possible only when a) a minimum wage worker has a real incentive (like an offer or promotion possibility) and when b) labor is scarce at all levels so management has an incentive to see workers become better able to do their jobs. When there's no incentive to work hard and gain skills because (think small town) there's nothing at all available and no way to escape, then people will focus their attention on things other than work because that pays off. Even in cities, when labor is scarce, management will provide those promotion and wage incentives to improve their workforce because they can't afford to lose anyone. But when it's a McJob and there are 200 people that will take it.... skill improvement can be detrimental to workers. Their bosses, who don't really have the skills themselves, are often uncooperative or hostile to skill improvement efforts, leaving workers possibly unemployed in an environment where there are no jobs. In a stagnant economy, improving your skills can be a recipe for unemployment. (I've seen it happen too many times.)

[justice1]

23. Rural areas often only pay minimum wage or slightly above.

In my experience most of the jobs are held my working mothers. It was only after Walmart opened up about 15 miles from the town I live in that wages started to rise, but most local employers still don't pay as much as Walmart.

[Poppyseedman]

37. "but most local employers still don't pay as much as Walmart."

Isn't that against the rules to praise Wal-Mart?

Just asking...........:evilfrown:

[lindisfarne]

26. 2.5% is the number paid at FED min wage. They don't count those paid

at the minimum wage in states which have a higher minimum wage. CA's minimum wage is $6.75/hour; CA represents 1/8 of the US's population. There are quite a few states with minimum wages higher than the federal minimum, so the 2.5% is very low.

Additionally, someone in a state whose minimum wage is equal to the federal minimum wage would not be included in that 2.5% if they made 5.20/hour (federal minimum wage is 5.15 an hour).

So those BLS statistics really must be interpreted and cited with caution. The way the numbers are reported is chosen carefully, to manipulate them to serve certain purposes (business and * admin).

I'd like to see a number which shows people making under 5.67 an hour (10% above fed. minimum wage) or under 6.18/hour (20% above fed. minimum wage). Those numbers would be much more revealing.

Also, I'd like to see the same numbers taking into account a state's minimum wage. In other words, how many US workers are earning a wage:
equal to or less than *their state's minimum plus 10%*?
equal to or less than *their state's minimum plus 20%*?


That site also says "The proportion of hourly-paid workers earning the prevailing Federal minimum wage or less has trended downward since 1979, when data first began to be collected on a regular basis."

Well, of course that's true. A 5 cent raise in 1979 was equivalent to approximately a 20 cent raise today. So the percent of people making exactly minimum wage was going to be higher. Today, giving someone 5.20/hour isn't much more than giving them 5.15/hour. Anyone making 5.16/hour or higher will not be included in statistics which look only at people making exactly the minimum wage (or lower).

========
In fact, beyond the arguments made above, these kinds of statistics are pretty irrelevant when you have a federal minimum wage that is so low that only the most desperate will accept a job that pays fed. min. wage. Minimum wage today would have to be roughly between $7-$8/hour to be equivalent to that earned in 1979, once inflation is factored in.

For example, the relevant comparison, if they want to compare with 1979, would be "how many people in 2006 are earning a wage equal to or less than the minimum wage for 1979 (factoring in inflation).

[On the Road]

28. That's True, But Business That Pay a Little More than Minimum

will have to raise wages when the minimum is increased, if only to keep hiring from the same pool of talent.

If you're paying $3.25 above minimum, and suddenly the minimum jumps $3.00, your wages are suddenly nothing special, even for unskilled workers with no experience.

[BlueManDude]

11. why not accurately calculate inflation? n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

12. The Puggies can score too many points with the system as is.

They get points with the Wall Street gang by not raising it 9 years out of 10, & then they make a big hullabaloo about raising it a few cents every decade or so & con some of the sheep into thinking they've done them a big favor just before the election.

And truth to tell, a lot of Dems probly like having to make a big, public fight over raising the minimum every now & then too.

It's a good system the way it is. Good for the rich, good for opportunists in both parties. Just not so good for anybody who has to try to live on it.

[Omaha Steve]

14. Allow Congress a raise only in years the minimum goes up

My idea. Any good?

[depakid]

15. We do in Oregon

"Beginning January 1, 2004, and annually thereafter, the rate will be adjusted for inflation by a calculation using the U.S. City Average Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for All Items. The wage amount established will be rounded to the nearest five cents."

See how your state compares:

http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm

[Ghost in the Machine]

16. The minimum wage should be at least $8 per hour...

Hell, I wouldn't get out of bed for less than $12/hr.. and that just makes me show up and go through the motions. If ya wanna see me work hard it'll cost ya $15/hr... and if ya want me to sweat it's gonna cost ya $18/hr. But then again, I've got the skills and tools to back me up. Some people, sadly to say, can only hope for minimum wage as they have no education or marketable skills. Reasons for this can vary from being unable to learn because of a learning disability right down to someone else's unwillingness to learn, either from laziness, lack of initiative or downright refusal to learn.

I never will believe that someone's socio-economical status, skin color, race or sexual orientation is a hinderance to their ability to learn and succeed in life. There are so many services available to anyone who really wants to help themselves. Granted, some of us who don't make a lot or have a lot of money may have more obstacles to conquer than the wealthy and rich, but climbing those obstacles will only make you stronger in your journey to improve yourself and your life. If you simply lay down and let obtacles defeat you you're never going to get there anyways because you don't want it bad enough, in my humble opinion.

I don't know how anyone could survive on $5.35 per hour, or how they could be expected to, but I also know that that $5.35/hr is the only thing that separates the almost homeless from the real homeless. At least some can afford to stay at the weekly rent motels or find some other affordable living arrangement.

Transportation is another obstacle for many people. That's why I think the Democrats need to have a good plan for public transportation overhaul and trying to extend into the rural areas. This is a key to helping build the infrastructure and the economy.

Of course, before we can do anything, we've got to rid ourselves of this criminal cabal and fascist regime. I hope the Dem leaders are taking notes on this. It is important to run on the issues, but at the same time, we can also enjoy smacking the the criminals around a little bit with their own dirty laundry. We need to go on the offensive and keep the on the defensive. Expound on the issues that face our Nation and keep pounding them right in the face with their corruption, lies and incompetence. The only way to beat the repugs is to beat them down into submission!

[Lib Grrrrl]

18. I Don't Get Held Back By Discrimination, So Of Course It Doesn't Exist...

blah blah blah...

Lemme ask you something, Ghost...what the fuck drugs are you on, and may I have some, please?!!?

I am a transgender person who faces discrimination day in and day out. Don't fucking tell me discrimination doesn't occur, because I know better!

Discrimination didn't occur much in the Clinton years, because, there were so many jobs available, employers COULDN'T really discriminate. Now, with more people competing for fewer jobs...

Hey, say what you want, but even employment experts will tell you that good-looking people have a decided advantage in the workforce.

Fat people get discriminated against. Ugly people get discriminated against. Gay and transgender folks get it, too. So do smokers and blacks and Hispanics.

Ghost...you claim these things don't hold people back, and you would have us all believe that discrimination does not exist. I, on the other hand, Ghost...believe that you are so full of shit your eyes are brown!

[Ghost in the Machine]

19. Whoa! Slow down a minute here!

I never said there wasn't discrimination. I don't see discrimination as a hinderance in the context of what I was talking about. Discrimination is a personal issue in a bigot's mind. Race, skin color, gender and sexual orientation are part of the human condition, something you are born with, not something you have learned. No one is born with discrimination in their heart or in their psyche. There are many places to go where you aren't discriminated against. Community and Social Outreach Programs. Not every employer is discriminatory. When I had my own business, I never asked anyone about their sexual orientation or preference because A.)it was none of my business and B.) I really don't care as long as you are doing the job I hired you to do.

I have in no way put you down or tried to insult you that I know of. Sorry if you take it that way.

What kind of drugs am I on? You mean you can spell it through here?!? Can you have some? Sure, here ya go

Can you enlighten me some? I don't mean to sound ignorant here, but what exactly is trans-gender? Is that where you are one sex, but live as the other, or is where you were born as one gender but have the opposite genitalia? I mean no harm and ask from the heart because I want to be educated on this.

BTW, I'm a fat, ugly smoker but it's never stopped me from getting a job because I chose to work where that didn't matter. Construction is very forgiving to us fat ugly guys! :rofl:

[Lib Grrrrl]

20. Well

Transgender is where your GENDER self-identification is not congruent with your anatomical, biological SEX.

Basically, to be simple...the case of the woman trapped in a man's body thing. Like Renee Richards or Christine Jorgensen, to name just a few of the more well-known ones.

Actually, transgender is an umbrella term covering a wide array of people who, in some way, differ from their expected gender role. One could be considered transgender if they belong in any of the following groups, AND if they also self-identify as transgender.

Drag kings/queens
Crossdressers (also known as transvestites, but that is not the preferred term)
Transsexuals (pre-op, post-op, and non-op)*
Intersexed (also known as Hermaphrodites, although that is not the preferred term)**
Also, some butch lesbians could be considered transgender in their manner of dress and appearance.

Again, one is only transgender if they also self-identify as such.

* pre-op refers to a transsexual who aspires to, and has not yet recieved surgery...they may or may not be on hormone therapy, and they also may or may not yet live full-time in their target gender.
* post-op refers to a transsexual who has completed surgery (I, myself, fit into this category)
* non-op refers to one who has no desire for surgery at all, but often chooses to live full-time in the gender opposite their birth gender...many non-op's also utilize hormone therapy.
* It should be noted that there are transsexuals who are male-to-female...as well as those who are female-to-male.

**Intersexed is a term which refers to many different conditions, including, among them, being born with both genitalia, ambiguous genitalia (such a microphallus....or elongated clitoris) as well as those born with the external organs of one, and the internal organs of the other...as well as several genetic disorders, chromosomal imbalances...the best-known of which are Kleinfelter Syndrome, and Turner Syndrome. Many intersexed people do not consider themselves to be transgender...particularly if they were not "fixed" at birth into one gender or the other...many do not opt to be "fixed" at all, given their choice.

that's the basic ins and outs. I can get into more specifics if you wish, or have further questions.

[Ghost in the Machine]

21. Thank you for the information

I would really like to learn more and I do have questions but I don't want to hijack this thread or go off topic. Would it be ok to drop a PM sometime?

[Lib Grrrrl]

27. Sure, No Problem!

n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

38. ....

I don't have enough posts to PM yet... I'll keep trying

[lindisfarne]

25. WA does this; CA is trying but Arnie will veto. n/t

[sendero]

30. Especially since..

... many people (including me) believe that the official CPI understates the effective inflation rate by around 3%.