this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2024
242 points (95.1% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2705 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago (4 children)

That's $100k/yr roughly.

That seems insane for a minimum wage, but then again when rent is $2500+ for a one bedroom...

Presumably all other salaries would be pressured into increases. Or you'd have people quiting their jobs to work at McDonald's.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago (2 children)

That's exactly it. Cost of living has outpaced wages for 50+ years. $100k might sound like a "made-it" salary, but it's actually not that compared to buying power of previous generations.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

My sister and her husband make $65k a year each and they're living paycheck to paycheck. If $130k a year doesn't pay for a mortgage, car payments, and raising your kids, what are we even bothering for?

We're overdue for a demonstration, nationwide.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

You're right, but also that number could be $180k and I doubt you'd see much difference, they'd have more expensive cars, maybe a nicer house, and take a fancy vacation but still be at the same place at the end of the month. Not to detracg from the cost of living crisis, just that some of it is simply the lifestyles we choose to spend on

[–] [email protected] -2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

When I look at what $5 in 1990 is worth today, it's $11.80 (allegedly).

Min wage was $3.80 then so that would make it $9.24 now.

What am I missing?

I guess that's just inflation. What else should go into the minimum wage calculation. (Also this assumes $3.80 was fair back in 1990)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

What am I missing?

Have you tried living off $9.24 an hour? That's about $370 a week before taxes.

Average rent in the US was $1372 a month 2023, which means just buying power isn't enough to figure this out. Many people who already own property miss the fact that it's largely impossible not to rent forever for anyone born after 1990, and extremely hard for anyone born after 1980 (on average -- it differs for cheaper areas, which won't be cheaper for much longer based on trends).

I'd argue we have multiple factors. Inflation is a huge one, but cost of living has in many ways outpaced inflation. Those two alone are additive, which is why even the current California minimum wage of $15.50 is not enough.

Let's leave it as an amorphous amount for now, and I'll ask a different question: what about a potential $50 minimum wage upsets you? What makes that a bad idea, in your view (and if you don't believe it is, apologies in advance!).

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

That makes sense. I don't know why people are down voting me like it's reddit. It was a good faith question.

If you look at # of hours to pay average rent it was 118 hours in 1990 min wage versus 189 with today's. You literally have to work more that 40 hours a week to just pay rent. It wasn't my h better in the

I'm on board with higher minimum wage but the entire system should be looked at. Housing quadrupling in cost(to rent) seems like it should be an even bigger concern than stagnate min wage. It's not zero sum but Jesus Christ that's nuts.

I don't have a problem with a $50 min wage on the face of it. My concerns would be: does that drive inflation higher?(I read that it doesn't, but I'm not sure how it wouldn't) would that just make rent higher? Would the price of things skyrocket just because companies can go after the extra money? We already saw shitty corps using inflation as cover for profiteering.

Basically what is the consequence of such a drastic increase? Would it start a race condition?

Obviously companies across the country would potentially go under and be forced to raise compensation(which is fantastic imo). Id feel bad for some small businesses but at the same time, I think it was Roosevelt who said, if you can't afford to pay a decent wage you can't afford to be in business.

And I have no sympathy for big companies like Walmart who pay people scraps and depend on the government to fill in the gaps with food stamps and welfare.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

What am I missing?

Most major inflation indices omit things like the cost of food and housing. So, they are only marginally useful in looking at the financial experiences of the populace.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago

I make $100 k / year in the bay area, and I am fucking poor. It's dumb.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago

Sounds insane until you consider the purchasing power of the dollar over the last few decades. These boomers railing against wave hikes cause they retired in 15/hour would have effectively been making 70 or more today. You need a 6 figure salary today to enjoy a life comparable to what your grandparents or great grandparents enjoyed on a single salary bringing home 10/hour