Economy Minimum wage debate: States make their own increases (Post #340)

Should there be a federal minimum wage hike?


  • Total voters
    197
I don't see any correlation to fringe benefit increases in high skilled labor roles and low skilled labor wage stagnation. Increases in non-wage comp are a result of the basic principles of economics which is to balance supply and demand. Maintaining top talent in order to continue driving top and bottom line growth is the sole driver of these benefits.

Even once historically low paid trade skills have seen an absolute boom in pay once again solely tied to economics. When you have a skill in demand you get paid more. Hence, go to school and get a real major or skill rather than an Art History major or Diversity management degree.
You don't have to see a correlation. If you go and pull total compensation figures over the last 50 years it's right there in the data. Total compensation has risen in line with inflation over the last 50 years. However, the increase has been in the value of non-wage compensation. Wages have not moved.

No one says not to pay your top people more. The point which the data shows is that the "more" is in non-wage compensation. A company could just as easily pay it's top performers more money. But they're not, they're paying them in benefits instead. And since some of those benefits often go un-used, even the top performers are actually taking home less compensation than if they were simply given the cash.
 
You don't have to see a correlation. If you go and pull total compensation figures over the last 50 years it's right there in the data. Total compensation has risen in line with inflation over the last 50 years. However, the increase has been in the value of non-wage compensation. Wages have not moved.

No one says not to pay your top people more. The point which the data shows is that the "more" is in non-wage compensation. A company could just as easily pay it's top performers more money. But they're not, they're paying them in benefits instead. And since some of those benefits often go un-used, even the top performers are actually taking home less compensation than if they were simply given the cash.
That's because the "more" you are referencing is actually MORE valuable than gross income increases. Additional 401K matching, profit sharing, LTIP, and health care subsidies are a much better return for those paying 35%+ effective tax rates.
 
That's because the "more" you are referencing is actually MORE valuable than gross income increases. Additional 401K matching, profit sharing, LTIP, and health care subsidies are a much better return for those paying 35%+ effective tax rates.
Uhm, no it's not. The employee still pays taxes on some of it and for the rest they can self-direct their own money to get the tax benefits. But that's really besides the point. The point is that the "more" is in a form of compensation that isn't made available to lower wage earners.

So a lower wage earner could also get 401(k) matching at their lower incomes, they could get healthcare subsidies at their lower incomes, etc. Instead they're not getting anything and their wages are stagnant. The higher income earners are getting more benefits but their wages are also stagnating.

Your claim that these things are more valuable but, as I pointed out earlier, they're not. They have an economic value. And that economic value can just as easily be provided either in the form of cash. $10k in benefits is the same as $10k in cash. $10k in cash could be put into retirement planning strategies that yield equally valuable deductions or other investments that yield additional gain over time.

However, the same is not true in reverse. If someone doesn't max their 401(k), they're getting less compensation because they don't get the full value of the match. In that case, they'd be better of with the cash. We could go down the list but some of your choices are only for executive level employees and I'm speaking about the entire range of employees who get paid in benefits, which includes lower level white collar workers. And entry level accountant for example isn't getting big bonuses, they might be better served getting straight cash. Instead of health insurance subsidies for a health plan that they might never use and would be better served finding a cheaper plan on the market place and pocketing the cash difference. If you're only thinking about executive level employees when discussing benefits then you're missing a huge chunk of the workforce and how benefits compensation vs. cash compensation would yield different economic incentives for them and how that lack of access impacts total compensation for people at the lowest end of the income stream.
 
Uhm, no it's not. The employee still pays taxes on some of it and for the rest they can self-direct their own money to get the tax benefits. But that's really besides the point. The point is that the "more" is in a form of compensation that isn't made available to lower wage earners.

So a lower wage earner could also get 401(k) matching at their lower incomes, they could get healthcare subsidies at their lower incomes, etc. Instead they're not getting anything and their wages are stagnant. The higher income earners are getting more benefits but their wages are also stagnating.

Your claim that these things are more valuable but, as I pointed out earlier, they're not. They have an economic value. And that economic value can just as easily be provided either in the form of cash. $10k in benefits is the same as $10k in cash. $10k in cash could be put into retirement planning strategies that yield equally valuable deductions or other investments that yield additional gain over time.


The whole idea of retirement/401K is to avoid paying taxes NOW at your highest effective rate only to collect later when you are in the lower/lowest of brackets. $10K of additional profit sharing is actually $10K that builds varying levels of interest depending on your investment choices. $10K of additional income is fully taxed at your current Fed and state effective rates. Yes, you can invest the net of the $10K which is $5.7K for many middle/high earners in CA.

I'll give you the best example. My company car went away a few years ago in favor of a monthly allowance. The allowance is fully taxed as ordinary income and the car was not taxed in anyway. All of leadership revolted against the initial allowance tiers because it cost everyone 35% minimum with the shift.
 
On a related note, Costco just bumped the minimum salary for their associates to $16.

Ofcourse, their annual membership fee makes comparisons to regular stores apple-to-orange.

 
On a related note, Costco just bumped the minimum salary for their associates to $16.

Ofcourse, their annual membership fee makes comparisons to regular stores apple-to-orange.


Costco's move is somehow "different" and invalid because they have membership structures?

Gtfoh lol. What right wing blog post told you that was a meaningful way of squashing a living wage?
 
With that said, I don't know why it wasn't written that the federal minimum wage rises as inflation does. That way the increases are gradual and nowhere near as bad as trying to double it within a few years.

Ronald Reagan.


1280px-Timeline_of_federal_minimum_hourly_wage_for_nonfarm_workers_for_the_United_States._And_inflation-adjusted.gif
 
Interesting...



This was expected and isn’t really surprising as much as Bernie is going to complain. I honestly think Biden only went with it in the bill cause he didn’t think it would make it past due to this and he could still get some respect from the farther left of the party that he technically tried. The budget reconciliation path has its restraints and I don’t know any pundits who thought it would work, left or right. Those on the left said what they could do to make it work is have an employer tax for any wage under what they want the minimum wage to be that would make them pay the difference either way, which would make the employer choose to pay the employee rather than the government the difference. I don’t know if they’ll honestly go that route but the reason it was even being mentioned was due to the context in knowing this wasn’t going to fly.
 
This was expected and isn’t really surprising as much as Bernie is going to complain. I honestly think Biden only went with it in the bill cause he didn’t think it would make it past due to this and he could still get some respect from the farther left of the party that he technically tried. The budget reconciliation path has its restraints and I don’t know any pundits who thought it would work, left or right. Those on the left said what they could do to make it work is have an employer tax for any wage under what they want the minimum wage to be that would make them pay the difference either way, which would make the employer choose to pay the employee rather than the government the difference. I don’t know if they’ll honestly go that route but the reason it was even being mentioned was due to the context in knowing this wasn’t going to fly.

The interesting is Bernie trying to tie it to employer taxes. I don't think it has support to hold the bill past when enhanced unemployment ends but it's an interesting tactic.

I think Biden supports $15 enough in general.... but not enough to tank a $1.9T spending bill...
 
The interesting is Bernie trying to tie it to employer taxes. I don't think it has support to hold the bill past when enhanced unemployment ends but it's an interesting tactic.

I think Biden supports $15 enough in general.... but not enough to tank a $1.9T spending bill...

Yea, I don’t expect them to actually go that route. I’ve only seen it used as an example of what they could do if they wanted to find a workaround and actually get it to pass. I wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t just Biden either and there were some senators expecting this all to happen too.
 
Yea, I don’t expect them to actually go that route. I’ve only seen it used as an example of what they could do if they wanted to find a workaround and actually get it to pass. I wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t just Biden either and there were some senators expecting this all to happen too.

I think they'll have to use Reconciliation to pass Biden's Infrastructure plan as well so maybe they'll try it at that point
 
The CBO published a new report that says that the minimum wage may actually kill jobs this time, contradicting another report they did.

My main issue is why the FUCK would we ever consider a MW hike during a recession?

Do all that when we have herd immunity and people can actually get back to work and make money and pay their employees.
 
I think they'll have to use Reconciliation to pass Biden's Infrastructure plan as well so maybe they'll try it at that point

Maybe. Coming up with workarounds like that is bad policy but budget reconciliation forces it to have to happen that way. I don’t expect it to actually make it in any bill. Maybe if they gain seats in 22 but not depending on all 50 votes.
 
Maybe. Coming up with workarounds like that is bad policy but budget reconciliation forces it to have to happen that way. I don’t expect it to actually make it in any bill. Maybe if they gain seats in 22 but not depending on all 50 votes.

Manchin can be pushed but he has to be pushed.

I think $15 is going to gain support
 
Manchin can be pushed but he has to be pushed.

I think $15 is going to gain support

If Manchin really is the only reason it passed or not, the party is pretty left at this point. I think there are probably battleground state senators in lower cost of living states who do statements supporting this with the expectation they never will have to vote on it. There’s a lot of games like that in the senate where the parties are subtly jockeying on how to force or avoid votes on specific policies. There’s the possibility of seeing a lower amount to get to 60 votes since even someone like Cotton is willing to get to $10. In this case, it was a little different cause of the parliamentarian but I think it achieved the same purpose. There still will likely be a lot more increases in individual states with the way the trend is going. I honestly don’t get when California isn’t even at $15 yet with dominance in their state government that we should somehow force them and every other state to all go above their baseline. I think the original push for this had it phase in by 2024. It all just seems like pandering to me tbh (or I would at least hope).
 
If Manchin really is the only reason it passed or not, the party is pretty left at this point. I think there are probably battleground state senators in lower cost of living states who do statements supporting this with the expectation they never will have to vote on it. There’s a lot of games like that in the senate where the parties are subtly jockeying on how to force or avoid votes on specific policies. There’s the possibility of seeing a lower amount to get to 60 votes since even someone like Cotton is willing to get to $10. In this case, it was a little different cause of the parliamentarian but I think it achieved the same purpose. There still will likely be a lot more increases in individual states with the way the trend is going. I honestly don’t get when California isn’t even at $15 yet with dominance in their state government that we should somehow force them and every other state to all go above their baseline. I think the original push for this had it phase in by 2024. It all just seems like pandering to me tbh (or I would at least hope).

Isn't the current legislation on the table a phase in by 2024?

Ans I bring up Manchin because if he is on board it forces the other Senators.

Honestly the push to $15 isn't even a radical deal at this point.

Fighting against it is more of a pandering job imo
 
The CBO published a new report that says that the minimum wage may actually kill jobs this time, contradicting another report they did.

My main issue is why the FUCK would we ever consider a MW hike during a recession?

Do all that when we have herd immunity and people can actually get back to work and make money and pay their employees.


I don’t necessarily disagree with this point about waiting until the pandemic is over but in fairness even in a booming economy you guys cry about raising minimum wage.

it’s never “the right time” for people who hate labor. There is always a built in excuse.
 
@Lead to be more clear I don't think at this point $15 an hour minimum is a big shock to the system. And if this bill isn't tied to inflation how long until $15 is under market rate?
 
Back
Top