What should the federal minimum wage rightfully be in 2019?

[dianaiad]

If one works and one is single, one should be able to provide for him/herself. If one works and has a spouse and three babies, one should be able to provide for himself, the spouse and the three babies.

The federal minimum wage should be at least sufficient for just one working person to stuff his/her own face and keep a roof over his/her head with no need for room sharing.

A single working person may need a car for work if there's no bus line.

A single person should also make enough to preclude all forms of welfare including food stamps, housing vouchers and Medicaid. The minimum wage should be enough to keep a single adult working person entirely off the government tit and even afford adequate health and dental insurance if the employer doesn't offer it as a perk.

One problem. A federally mandated minimum wage IS the 'government tit.'

 

[dianaiad]

By the way, I wasn't very clear, so... I was stating I think college education, rather than laws, is the best way of pursuing a better wage. Some local colleges are almost free after certain grants.

College degrees do not do well as far as jobs are concerned. Just ask the guy who has his BA hanging on the wall while he flips burgers.

Or my nephew, who, after supporting himself VERY well for years as a body shop mechanic, went to school to get his degrees in geology, and now, with a Masters in geology, is working for an oil company at half the yearly income he got at the body shop.

AND a hefty student loan to pay back.

College isn't the answer for everybody, It might not be the answer for most people.

Shoot, I earned a lot more as a Realtor than I did as a teacher with an ME, myself. That was OK with me, because I wanted to teach more than I wanted to sell houses, so it wasn't about money for me. Still......

Come to think of it, I just bought a car from a young man (20) who works for a local car dealership. He started part time so that he could pay his tuition.

Took him about two months to figure out that working full time for the dealership got him a LOT more money than his proposed degree would. He has decided to sell cars for a living for a few years while taking classes part time, just because. He figures that it will take him until he is nearly thirty to get his MBA, but at the end of it, he won't have any student loans and he'll have plenty of money to do what he wants. I asked him what he would do with his MBA, and he said 'well, I guess I'll frame it.' He figures that he'll be the manager, at least, of a dealership by then, or a regional manager. An MBA would look good in his office, even though he probably won't use the MBA in his career. He'll use his career to get the MBA.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

College degrees do not do well as far as jobs are concerned. Just ask the guy who has his BA hanging on the wall while he flips burgers.

Or my nephew, who, after supporting himself VERY well for years as a body shop mechanic, went to school to get his degrees in geology, and now, with a Masters in geology, is working for an oil company at half the yearly income he got at the body shop.

AND a hefty student loan to pay back.

College isn't the answer for everybody, It might not be the answer for most people.

Shoot, I earned a lot more as a Realtor than I did as a teacher with an ME, myself. That was OK with me, because I wanted to teach more than I wanted to sell houses, so it wasn't about money for me. Still......

Come to think of it, I just bought a car from a young man (20) who works for a local car dealership. He started part time so that he could pay his tuition.

Took him about two months to figure out that working full time for the dealership got him a LOT more money than his proposed degree would. He has decided to sell cars for a living for a few years while taking classes part time, just because. He figures that it will take him until he is nearly thirty to get his MBA, but at the end of it, he won't have any student loans and he'll have plenty of money to do what he wants. I asked him what he would do with his MBA, and he said 'well, I guess I'll frame it.' He figures that he'll be the manager, at least, of a dealership by then, or a regional manager. An MBA would look good in his office, even though he probably won't use the MBA in his career. He'll use his career to get the MBA.

For what it's worth, I rated your post "Informative". Always gotta respect a good counterargument.

 

[Stevicus]

I think we can all agree that laws aren't necessarily constitutional or
not just cuz the USSC majority says so. We little people are free to
disagree with them. Criminy, they disagree among themselves.

Remember, there are vaunted constitutional scholars who believe that
prohibiting gay marriage & abortion is constitutional.

Well, of course, there have been matters where I disagree with the court or how they may interpret the Constitution. The Founders left a lot of things open ended. As you mentioned the 10th Amendment, I think that was their way of saying "If there's anything we haven't mentioned or included in this document, figure it out for yourselves." And that's what the Supreme Court, all the lower courts - along with the other branches of government and much of the general public have been arguing about.

This is especially true when it comes to the Constitution. So many people parse through the wording, examine every sentence, every part - not unlike religious scholars interpreting the text of the Bible.

So, the minimum wage isn't covered in the Constitution, so it's one of those things we have to figure out for ourselves. We can ask ourselves whether it's within the spirit of the ideals and principles outlined in the Constitution. We are a society with a firmly stated dedication to the principles of human rights.

So, the bottom line question here is: Should a minimal living wage be considered a human right?

 

[Stevicus]

That would be interesting. If the Coast got wages that high, would they apply to the whole state?

Sounds good to me.

 

[Revoltingest]

So, the minimum wage isn't covered in the Constitution, so it's one of those things we have to figure out for ourselves. We can ask ourselves whether it's within the spirit of the ideals and principles outlined in the Constitution. We are a society with a firmly stated dedication to the principles of human rights.

So, the bottom line question here is: Should a minimal living wage be considered a human right?

If this power isn't enumerated in the Constitution, then constitutionally it's
a matter for the states. But I also know that justices will rule based upon
personal philosophy & desire, eg, Kelo vs New London (broadening the
takings clause to give government more power).
I prefer the slower & more cumbersome approach of amending the
Constitution as specified within, rather than by judicial fiat. This dampens
the passions of the moment.

 

[We Never Know]

Congress has never let the federal minimum wage erode for this long

What is the minimum a single-person household adult American needs to truly earn a living income?

What a person needs to live varies by area. The cost of living in large cities are much higher than small towns.

Living Wage Calculator

 

[Rival]

One problem. A federally mandated minimum wage IS the 'government tit.'

Uh, no it isn't. It's an employer paying an employee a wage

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sounds good to me.

It might not be good, because the cost of living is significantly cheaper here than the coast. For here, it would be similar to having Indiana go up to 15/hour minimum. Or maybe worse, because the cost of living isnt too much higher than it is in Indiana, but it works out much better because the California minimum already exceeds the federal minimum.

 

[Revoltingest]

What a person needs to live varies by area. The cost of living in large cities are much higher than small towns.

Living Wage Calculator

Sounds like good reason to let states & cities address it.
The fed typically takes a one size fits all approach.

 

[Stevicus]

If this power isn't enumerated in the Constitution, then constitutionally it's
a matter for the states. But I also know that justices will rule based upon
personal philosophy & desire, eg, Kelo vs New London (broadening the
takings clause to give government more power).
I prefer the slower & more cumbersome approach of amending the
Constitution as specified within, rather than by judicial fiat. This dampens
the passions of the moment.

Well, sure, it's a matter for the states, but then again, we're kind of sort of like "united" states. The interstate commerce clause and the 14th amendment have been used to define Federal authority in the past.

But that aside, I agree with you in that such matters can be decided through constitutional means without judicial fiat. There are democratic processes which can be utilized, legislative processes. There are provisions for amending the Constitution, as you mention.

But while all of that is going on, there would ordinarily be a discussion about whether or not such a thing is good or bad for the country (or state or whatever jurisdiction is being discussed).

The 10th Amendment also leaves the power to the people, ultimately. So, let the people decide.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, sure, it's a matter for the states, but then again, we're kind of sort of like "united" states. The interstate commerce clause and the 14th amendment have been used to define Federal authority in the past.

The sin I've seen is that the Interstate Commerce Clause has been used to justify intra-state commerce.

But that aside, I agree with you in that such matters can be decided through constitutional means without judicial fiat. There are democratic processes which can be utilized, legislative processes. There are provisions for amending the Constitution, as you mention.

But while all of that is going on, there would ordinarily be a discussion about whether or not such a thing is good or bad for the country (or state or whatever jurisdiction is being discussed).

The 10th Amendment also leaves the power to the people, ultimately. So, let the people decide.

And of course, the people will act thru each venue (local, state,
federal) using the power which each is granted by the Constitution.

How's that for a murky statement to agree with you?

 

[PureX]

Yup. And far too many people just do not have the ability, option, or choice to get a better job. They shouldn't be punished for that.

We're always talking in this country about the value of working hard, and earning your keep, but when it comes to actually paying for that value, our greed suddenly becomes a much more important virtue. Why should anyone in this country believe the nonsense they're taught as children about the value of hard work, or of even working for your keep, when it's obvious that no one really values either one?

 

[Rival]

We're always talking in this country about the value of working hard, and earning your keep, but when it comes to actually paying for that value, our greed suddenly becomes a much more important virtue. Why should anyone in this country believe the nonsense they're taught as children about the value of hard work, or of even working for your keep, when it's obvious that no one really values either one?

They value hard work because it makes them money, not you.

 

[PureX]

They value hard work because it makes them money, not you.

Exactly, greed is the far more important 'value'. Our whole culture is based on that axiom. And until we face that ugly truth about ourselves, it will continue to poison everything we do.

 

[PureX]

Let's ask ourselves the counter-question in relation to minimum wage: at what point do we finally decide that we're being paid too much? That we aren't earning that much, or that we simply have enough money and don't need a bigger income?

 

[dianaiad]

Uh, no it isn't. It's an employer paying an employee a wage

....as mandated by the government. It affects the employer in terms of taxes, of profit, of the ability to produce products, to hire, and of course, since it isn't possible to hire, legally, anybody at a wage below the minimum...

Yeah, that's the government 'tit'.

 

[Rival]

....as mandated by the government. It affects the employer in terms of taxes, of profit, of the ability to produce products, to hire, and of course, since it isn't possible to hire, legally, anybody at a wage below the minimum...

Yeah, that's the government 'tit'.

All wages are government mandated. You have to pay your workers and you have to pay them well, unless you're alright with slavery.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We're always talking in this country about the value of working hard, and earning your keep, but when it comes to actually paying for that value, our greed suddenly becomes a much more important virtue. Why should anyone in this country believe the nonsense they're taught as children about the value of hard work, or of even working for your keep, when it's obvious that no one really values either one?

Probably because people do value those things, however we are lead to believe they pay off in our system when so clearly they only have a lottery's chance of actually doing so.

 

[dianaiad]

All wages are government mandated. You have to pay your workers and you have to pay them well, unless you're alright with slavery.

No they aren't. You have to pay your workers and you have to pay them enough so that they don't tell you to go pound sand and work for someone else.

No worker HAS to work for you, will they, nil they. That IS slavery. If they can leave, it's not. I think you need to go look up the definition of 'slavery.'

So, if I own a store and want to hire someone to sell yarn, I'd better offer enough to make someone want to work for me. If I don't, nobody will. If I don't offer enough, s/he will leave and work for someone else. If I'm the only employer in the area, I'd better take good care to offer good wages, because union strikes are not good things.

........I don't see 'slavery' anywhere in there. It's a bit odd that you do.