US Politics Mega-thread - Page 159

On March 12 2013 07:50 Souma wrote:




Nah, those numbers could just be calculated by some entity that is not the state. Problem solved. It wouldn't change the status quo much aside from not forcing some states to have a minimum wage higher than what is needed in their particular state and it may make some states raise their minimum wage (of course, states would still be able to raise their minimum wage beyond that). I only bring this up because there's a debate circulating around about raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10, and I'm thinking that feels a bit too arbitrary for some areas.

In any case, seems we'd be better off calculating it on a state-by-state basis.

On March 12 2013 07:58 aksfjh wrote:

There's also the issue of inefficiencies in any formula that's applied. You know we'd get a report years down the line about Wal-Mart employees being paid $20/hr in some crappy neighborhood due to numbers being applied in some strange way. I want minimum wage to be something people can count on and view as a positive enforcement of society, not a scapegoat for "too much government meddling."

On March 12 2013 07:56 Souma wrote:


Census? Or have the entity run their own numbers? So many ways that this can be done. I don't accept the mentality that it can't be done.

You may have to elaborate on the second point. Whether it's easy or not is not really an argument though; it's more whether it's viable/plausible/can and will be done.

On March 12 2013 08:02 Souma wrote:


I don't accept such hypotheticals as an argument. If you say that there can't possibly be a formula/multiple formulas that can be applied satisfactorily throughout the country, then I will hop on your side. However I highly doubt that's the case, though I have no basis for this. I just find it hard to believe that we can't calculate a better minimum wage for each individual state.

On March 12 2013 08:24 micronesia wrote:
You still haven't said what numbers should be used to calculate the minimum wage. It's easy to say these numbers exist.

Whether or not it's easy and whether or not it's viable are linked. This is really connected to the other part though: how exactly do you propose we calculate a minimum wage state by state? What metrics should be used exactly?

On March 12 2013 08:51 NovaTheFeared wrote:


I don't understand the need for a federal minimum wage that is not uniform across the states. If citizens in states want a higher minimum wage to account for higher CoL in their state, they can already do that. What problem is this addressing?

On March 12 2013 08:53 DeltaX wrote:
Why should the federal government dictate state by state minimum wages instead of letting states decide what those wages should be?

On March 12 2013 08:52 Souma wrote:


Uhm, the minimum wage of some states are already being calculated. Surely your question must be rhetorical, because it obviously is possible. I'm not an economist or whathaveyou, so I wouldn't know what numbers to run. But don't mistake me for an expert that can easily be employed and can give you the answer you seek.



And if/when the new uniform federal minimum wage is calculated, should every state have to abide by it even if it seems too high for some? What if it's too low for some states, and the politicians in that particular state are content with not raising it any further to the detriment of their citizenry? You can say, "Oh, well then they should vote for new representatives," but if things were so simple we wouldn't need a federal minimum wage in the first place.

On March 12 2013 08:59 NovaTheFeared wrote:


Ok, so the real reason for the CoL adjusted minimum wage is that you believe there are states with Republican politicians that need to raise their minimum wages but won't and that you know better than the voters. You may be right, but it's the cost of democracy my friend.

On March 12 2013 08:52 Souma wrote:


Uhm, the minimum wage of some states are already being calculated. Surely your question must be rhetorical, because it obviously is possible. I'm not an economist or whathaveyou, so I wouldn't know what numbers to run. But don't mistake me for an expert that can easily be employed and can give you the answer you seek.

On March 12 2013 09:18 micronesia wrote:

You originally said "Wouldn't it be better to not have a single wage across the country (say, $10.00/hr), but instead make states base their minimum wage on some formula (taking inflation into consideration of course) so that wages are more in line with the living costs of their particular state?"

My issue isn't that it is impossible to come up with a way to implement what you are proposing; my issue is that it might be the case that any attempt to implement it will be horribly unfair and inaccurate. If you think this is wrong then that's fine, but you should provide some evidence if you want us to believe what you said about what would be better for the country.

On March 12 2013 09:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Souma, to my knowledge minimum wages aren't "calculated" they're arbitrary numbers that society feels are "fair" minimums for an hour's work. Setting an arbitrary formula (rather than a fixed number) doesn't make it any less arbitrary so I'm not sure what you're getting at exactly.

Determining the actual minimum wage was originally supposed to be the job of an oversight committee. This board composed of lawmakers, economists and business leaders would consider the current social and economic climate to determine if an adjustment was necessary. Such factors as the unemployment rate, inflation rate, and average family incomes would theoretically determine the lowest living wage and the federal minimum would be adjusted accordingly. This is how it was supposed to work on paper, anyway.

In reality, there has never really been an established formula for determining the federal minimum wage. Some sources believe that it is calculated as a certain percentage of the current poverty line for a family of four, but in recent years that has not proven to be the case. Currently, it is not indexed to the rate of inflation, either. There have been efforts to tie the minimum wage to the annual inflation rate, but those proposals have not been adopted. In fact, the most recent raise, adopted by Congress in 2007, does not even match the actual spending power of the 1979 adjustment.

On March 12 2013 09:51 Souma wrote:
You can talk about fairness/inaccuracy all you want, but there is nothing less fair and inaccurate than a number that we merely pull out of thin air and expect everyone to abide by.

On March 12 2013 10:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Then perhaps we shouldn't have one.

On March 12 2013 09:27 Souma wrote:
Let's use some logic here, people.

In either case, it's the federal government using whatever numbers they use to calculate the minimum wage.

Any such attempts to change the federal minimum wage (especially in a manner as I proposed) will need the consent of both chambers of Congress and the President. I highly doubt it will be any more unfair and inaccurate than the current method. Allowing a third-party entity, whether bipartisan or nonpartisan, to determine what needs to be done would also give it a bit more clout on the fairness scale.

On March 12 2013 10:23 micronesia wrote:
Do you think starting a post like this makes it more convincing?

Clearly you don't understand how minimum wage is determined well enough to be justified in making claims in public discussions about how it would be better for the federal government to differentiate minimum wage by state. I am in the same boat as you. The difference is, I am simply playing the devil's advocate rather than trying to push my randomly generated opinion on to other readers. Your idea sounds like it may have merit, but I'm not convinced it's better to have the federal government tell each state what their minimum wage should be rather than letting the states do it (regardless of if there is a baseline federal minimum or not). I'm not quick to assume the federal government knows what's better for a state than the state leadership is (not that this isn't debatable). If there is a very good way of calculating an appropriate minimum wage for each state, then maybe it's worth some of the drawbacks. I have yet to see any evidence of this; just 'trust me' type comments (and 'use logic' apparently).

So you are saying your plan is better than status quot because, if it gets approved by the relevant federal parties, obviously it was good? You are big on saying how things are 'not an argument' but you made a strange one here.

If my proposal to declare Monday national starcraft day gets through the house and the senate, it obviously was a good idea. Man, wouldn't it be better if Monday was national starcraft day? If you question this, you are probably wrong. Use some logic.

On March 12 2013 10:15 Souma wrote:


Or have something that serves its purpose well.