Yeah I mean there's way more than one solution and we can do them all at the same time. Jail CEOs, tax the wealthy, increase minimum wage, increase union protections, tax inheritance ... The list goes on.
I suppose it's nice to hear that there are a handful of legit progressives out there, but if we ever manage to get a living wage passed in this country, I hope it's tied to inflation so the capitalists can't so easily abuse it and gouge prices.
Inflation is measured disproportionally by commodity prices. That's why you can see consumer prices nearly double, and inflation is only mentioned as 5-10%.
The corporations can triple the prices on the shelves, and if the commodities they buy to produce those consumer products are more or less the same price, inflation numbers won't really budge much.
Minimum wage should be tied to cost-of-living, which also varies by region. If San Fransisco and backwoods Oklahoma are averaged together, that's not going to be a very useful metric.
Minimum wage in a given district should be a proportion of the cost of living for that district, such that, for example, a person working four 40 hour weeks (160 hours) should be able to meet the cost of all their basic necessities with a defined percentage of their income, say maybe 30% (although since it's a minimum, that percentage could reasonably be higher, but definitely no higher than 60%).
Of course, what necessities are included, and how to measure their cost needs to be clearly defined. I'd say as a baseline, that would include food, housing, utilities (including water, electric, heat, and honestly even internet and cell service because let's be honest, those are necessities these days), healthcare, and reasonable transportation based on what's available in the area (i.e. viable public transit or car-centric infrastructure). Arguments can be made to include other recurring expenses, such as clothes, but that would be harder to quantify. (Things like savings and discretionary expenses belong in the leftover percentage of income).
So if, for example, someone lives in a place where the cost of living is measured as $2000 per month, and say the minimum wage is tethered to the cost of living by a factor of 50%. That means the person should make at least $4000 for a month's worth of work. $4000 ÷ 160 hours = $25/hour, so that tracks with what they're pushing for.
Of course, some places (many places, these days), $2000 isn't enough to make ends meet. So cost-of-living should be calculated by district. And the specific percentage is negotiable. States with good legislators might deem 30% of minimum wage income should be enough to meet necessities. States with shitty representatives might say 60% of minimum wage income should be enough to meet necessities. And that can change the calculation drastically, so there's a lot of wiggle room. But the overall structure of the formula should be mandated nationwide, as well as a standard definition of necessities and how to measure them.
Lastly, this leaves room in the future for a particularly progressive Congress to change the definition of a work week to 30 hours or so. All that needs to change then is the number you divide the monthly income by (in this case, 120, so 4000/120 = $33/hour in our enlightened future).
There're soft power advantages even for a Bill with an expected 1% chance of passing (GovTrack):
It widens the Overton Window, challenging the neoliberal status quo.
It organizes the 100+ organizations supporting it into a coalition.
It forces Republicans to vote against a bill popular with Democrats, young people, and minority voters.
I'd rather have Democrats doing this type of strategy over sitting on their hands while they have no power. When it fails loudly in a hostile Congress it may accomplish more than a watered-down bill that quietly passes.
Obama promised to codify Roe into law and didn't do so even though he had a supermajority.
Dems may not say it, but they love that abortion's an issue that they can fundraise off of, and they have no intention of making it explicitly legal nationwide.
To ensure wages don’t lag again in the following years, the bill also requires the minimum wage to automatically grow each year to reach the equivalent of two-thirds the national median hourly wage. It also eliminates the subminimum wage, which is paid to tipped workers, youth workers, and workers with disabilities.
I’m in favor of both of these. It means we don’t have to relitigate the minimum wage battle every few years, and paves the way for moving away from tipping, which I can’t be alone in wanting.
Tethering minimum wage to median hourly wage is a good start, but might have some unintended yet foreseeable consequences, since it would incentivize employers to suppress wages to keep the median wage down, and thus lower minimum wage.
Far better would be to tether minimum wage to the cost-of-living. I explained in more detail in a different comment, but basically the formula has three variables: the monthly cost of necessities (area-dependent), the percentage of monthly income (at minimum wage) that should be expected to meet the cost of necessities (defined by legislation), and the number of hours that constitutes a month's work (also defined by legislation, for now it would be four 40-hour weeks, i.e. 160 hours).
So for example, if a state legislature chooses 50% as the proportion of monthly minimum-wage income that should be enough to meet necessities, and someone lives/works in a district where necessities cost $2000 per month, and we're using the standard workweek, the formula would look like this:
($2000 ÷ 50%) ÷ 160 = $4000 ÷ 160 = $25/hour
Which tracks with the legislation in the OP, but it's also a flexible formula which can be adapted as needed, leaves room for negotiation (e.g. states can choose what percentage to use, and whether COLA should be measured state-wide or by district) which should make it palatable to the widest audience, and it should also adjust over time as cost-of-living should be recalculated every year.
So like, the national bureau of economic research has price indeces at ridiculously granular levels. One time I was trying to find an estimate for a client who lived near Stockton, CA and I didn't just have to choose the right type of price index, I had like seven different locations in Stockton they were tracking too. It was just one exercise after another of follow this table to that table to that table which eventually led to actual data, and it could all have been beautifully simplified into a real database instead of the excel spreadsheet we all had to work with, but times are tough in the ledger mines.
Yes so awesome they always do theater shit like this when they know fuck well it will never pass. Also always close to election time. But if they won the majority and if every Dem voted yes and it could pass. This bill wouldn't leave committee or they have a few safe Dem seats that will vote No. So I am not exited about this bill which is just fake bullshit to make you think the party on your side and not the rich.
This does nothing to fix the problem of the “gilded” part. The rich are obscenely so, and they control the State. That must be dealt wirh before anything will actually get better.
Every place in America is going to do one thing and one thing only. Every last place is going to jack up prices because they are not going to take the hit. Why not charge you $20 for a small coffee. Minimum wage is $25 what does it matter. It's still cost less than minimum wage... Why shouldn't they jack up rent, insurance, groceries, etc. Corporate greed isn't going to go away just because minimum wage goes up. Corporate greed is going to match and then beat anything. All you're going to be saying in a couple years after this goes in if it went in is that we need to raise minimum wage again.
Unless something is done about the busted system, all were doing is making profit numbers go up (despite the value of the dollar tanking).
How tf am I the bad guy here? I said, unless the busted system is fixed (aka the root problem) we're just going to be back at this exact same thing in a few years. That's massive inflation. Which you called, fixing the root problem, requiring a magic wand.
But somehow I'm the bad guy? Because I dare say the short-term fix isn't a long-term fix?
Because you are arguing against progress with the argument it is effectively useless. It isnt and it is a step in the right direction.
You didnt argue that the short term fix wasnt the long term fixyou agued the short term fix is an asset to the long term problem.
Data shows increases in min wage to liveable wage do not get proportionally passed onto consumers ad if they did they would create anopportunity for someone to charge 10 dollars for coffee per your example.
Does that data exclusively focus on the last 6 years, with companies reporting profits that put previous years to shame? Going to guess no. Does that data exclusively focus on just the US, or does it add in nations that it would work.
Because here's nvidia. From 2012-2019, they operated at 1 billion a quarter, ended on 3 billion in 2019. They did 68 billion last quarter.
You want me to post a bunch of other stocks? I can and they'll all tell the same story. If wages go up, then these companies are going to increase prices. Have you seen gas? Eggs? The slightest bit that might hurt their proffits gets passed to the customer and then a little more for more profit. Should we talk about how housing costs have gone up? All the houses near my parents, all doubled to quadrupled in "value" on Realtor.com one day. A house that was maybe 112K jumped to 300K in a single day, all over. Or car prices being closer to 100k than 20k.
2018, I probably would have agreed with you. Plenty of evidence in Europe of that working. But, this is America. We have data that shows, unless you solve the root problem first... you've not solved the problem. The recent trends, in America, clearly state that these CEOS, these people who went from maybe having a billion dollars (which is already pretty fucked) to being 100-billionaires to trying to become the first trillionaire.... Maybe, it's time to accept reality and increasing the minimum wage by itself, won't do shit. You'll just have 10$ coffees or $25 Happy Meals.
Hey cool pop science graphics, truly the epitome of educational.
Here is a paper from Berkley showing the effects of increased minimum wage did not impact employment, did not significantly or proportionally increase costs and absolutely did put workers in a better position.
Elasticity was covered in my studies yes. Thanks for linking, if I ever forget the basics of economics I'll be sure to check back.
The 2026 Federal Poverty Guidelines (FPL), released by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), set the poverty threshold at $15,960 annually for a one-person household in the contiguous U.S.
$25/hr x 40 hours a week x 52 weeks in a year comes out to $52,000 a year, which is more than triple the poverty level.
Does it matter what you call them if you get the same amount of cash? It all spends the same.
Don't ask for dividends, ask for equity. Ownership. see if they have an ESOP (Employee Stock Ownership Plan. That is a term of art: it's not one you should paraphrase, but the acronym is pronouncable and hr will recognize it) as that is the most common and easiest way for business owners to compensate workers by giving them a piece of the business. At least in statesia, ymmv elsewhere.
It matters greatly!
Do you confuse a slice of a pie for an ingredient of a pie?
With your slice, you can reinvest in whatever markets you wish, tax free ofc.
CX
Interesting edit you made there.
But sure, being part owner of where you work has its merits, but I am talking about labor for work produced. You can't really yield equity on service economics.
But at the least you see the problem with Congress evading the root of the problem.
Okay, short story a business can't just "pay you in dividends" because there is very strict law around the issuance of dividends. If you already owned enough of the company that you could be effectively paid via your stock, you would be accepting stock options as a major part of your compensation package, not dividends.
(this is a simplification assuming only one class of stock, but) If they issue dividends, they go out to everyone who owns stock at the same ratio. You don't just get to issue dividends to one person.
What you are talking about is a structural feature that typically only corporate sole proprietors get to take advantage of, and they have better ways to pull a sneaky on the irs. Like seriously, you're throwing in some additional taxes that don't need to be paid in there compared to if we just did a disbursement. It all depends what your goals are.
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
how about giving me something useful instead of just talking past me because i mentioned a word that set you off? I could use a good recipe for hulatang
The issue though is that the problematic wealthy don't have an income, they own assets that they borrow against instead of selling them so no capital gains taxes get paid.
Those are all loopholes we could patch if there would be political will to do so. Unfortunately they're all rich fucks themselves and beholden to the donor class
Wealth tax. More specifically, a securities tax: a tax on the stocks, bonds, and other financial assets used to build wealth.
Payable not in dollars, but in shares of the security. Every year, the SEC transfers 1% of all securities to IRS liquidators, who sell off those shares slowly over time. Liquidated shares may constitute no more than 1% of total traded volume at any time period.
Natural Persons (as opposed to artificial entities like corporations) may exempt up to $10 million worth of shares from taxation. This makes securities - the "means of production" - much more valuable to the working class than to the ultra-rich problem class.
A securities tax is the only feasible way of effectively taxing the ultra rich. As you noted, they easily avoid both income and capital gains taxes. A direct tax on their wealth-generating assets pushes those assets out of their hands and I to working-class portfolios.
We also need to increase the capital gains tax: it needs to be considerably higher than income tax.
And we need a punitively high top-tier income tax rate, like the 91% rate we had in the 1950s. Nobody will ever pay that tax: they will avoid it either by lowering their revenue, or increasing their deductible expenses, like payroll. Better for them to spend it on something they can use than just giving it to the IRS.
It won't end the new gilded age, but it can maybe help ease things. Chances are that companies will raise prices far beyond increased labor costs and blame the minimum wage increase. They can do this because there's too little competition in too many industries.
it wont past and this more performative for the Dems, they have been having unfavorable polling as of late in regards to israel/gaza, inaction against trump,,,,etc.
It’s a great idea, but under the current circumstances, it’s performative. And great, popular ideas like this always seem to be presented performatively in contexts this by the DNC, but never when they’re actually fucking in charge of shit - at least, they have for as long as I’ve been paying attention to politics.
I'm already forced to do the work of 3 people and it took months to find this job at all. The system behind this job market disaster obviously urgently needs drastic changes but I feel like this would only put even more people out of work or doing the work of their newly fired coworkers
Weirdly, giving people money to spend props up the businesses that depend on people spending money. Who knew? (Besides Keynes, FDR's entire cabinet, and anyone who's read a macro textbook since 1945.
Ok we’re not gonna sit here and be like people don’t deserve it like minimum wage definitely needs to be raised, however this will diminish the currency and companies will raise prices in retaliation: further enforcing the currency’s diminishing value.
Yes-raise minimum wage but also tack on max wage like you can’t make more than 5x than the lowest paid person in your company, a wealth tax and actually regulate the market to keep companies needlessly raising prices or undercutting other businesses and allowing monopolies. Thats its way more effective than only raising minimum wage.
Yeah, we need to establish not just a minimum wage, but also a "standard" wage. Businesses who only hire low wage workers should not exist. Businesses should be strictly limited on the proportion of labor they hire at "substandard" rates.
I don't think I said anything about Infinity. Tell me one thing which is truly infinite..
Greed may be close.
Are you saying that increasing income for the same work can't lead to inflation? Or that businesses aren't opportunistic and interested in maximizing revenue?
They will charge what the market will bear.. and the market will suddenly be able to bear just a little bit more 🤷♂️
That's an interesting idea though inflation often doesn't match affordability of consumer goods. Saw a different thread recently where that was discussed - inflation gets measured on commodities, not the end products people actually buy. Explaining why some products can easily cost 150-200% more when inflation itself goes up just a little.
Plus 70% of all statistics are made up, you know
Yay! Public masturbation instead of actually fucking doing something. What happened to impeaching the shit stain that keeps desecrating the constitution?
OK the problem I always see with this. Let's say I make $35 an hour. Shouldnt my salary now go up to like $70 since I was a higher value worker from that time? That won't happen.
I agree people deserve to live in moderate comfort ( a 1 bedroom apartment and a small car is fine for many). But I'm sorry, the dummy on tik Tok all day that barely can do their job at a pizza joint should not make almost the same money that I do providing industrial service knowledge that makes products you use every day. Some jobs are far more valuable than others, in real life.
Thats why musicians get paid nothing and construction workers get bank. Because their service is much more valuable in the real world.
I am always the bad guy in these convos. But admit it. You know the shitheads I'm talking about. They do not deserve that amount of pay. Not every poor person is secretly rain man if they just had money. A lot of people are just dumb.
Again, yes, give them enough to live on, but a lazy and unskilled person doesn't deserve land and a house and fancy things that other people worked their asses off for.
I also feel like in scummy america world, all the prices of everything will just shoot up like rent and food. So then me, with the previously higher paying job, would be making less overall
You're missing the point where people at least deserve enough to survive, or gasp maybe even enjoy their lives a little bit.
You're also missing the point where the minimum wage hadn't been updated for decades and maybe was remotely reasonable back in the 1970's but, alas, we're not living in the 1970's, we're living in 2026 and $7.25 (was it?) doesn't buy you shit now.
No I get that. Notice I didnt say just survive. I said living , so yes, able to have fun here and there.
I'm trying to make the point that among many class working folk is the reason they vote republican Instead of democrat, because democrats want to "take all their money" and " pay people $40/hr to flip burgers". Yes , they're idiots, but there is a little truth to that as I stated.
Note I'm not one of those people. Merely trying to break the Lemmy bubble and let you see into the real world for a moment.
The absolute arrogance of thinking that your experience is "the real world". Serious protagonist syndrome. And no, there's no truth to what you stated.
? You think someone is just going to choose to be a roofer in July over being a cashier st Walmart?
This is what im saying. You guys are severely misunderstanding the real world.
I would wager that none of you have ever worked construction or any hard jobs that actually create what you use to live. Your apartment ? Built by construction workers. You think that building would have just appeared out of the goodwill of volunteer construction workers ? Fuck no. Sure some people volunteer but its a very very very small minority.
You didn't apply any logic though, you just made a lot of unfounded assertions needed on your feelings about things. You really are a vile little slug.
As someone in the real world I'm sorry, I don't agree.
To the extent we have it now? Hell no, I do agree with you. No one should have billions while there are people working 3 jobs to pay rent.
But, to the point that the person building houses deserves the same as a clothing store employee ? Fuck no. If you think they do, your not being real at all. There are levels of value people bring to society. Its always been that way.
Its not black and white. Nuance on Lemmy is often disregarded.
"you've twisted everything I've said" is not a fucking rational argument, it's just you not having a response to my points while being too much of a whiny piss baby to admit it.
The hardest working people I know make shitall, and the lazy ones who don't do anything useful make bank. I'd rather pizza place workers make a living wage for the thankless work they do then overpayed middle manager ghouls get to feel like bigshots.
People like you are so obsessed with making sure nobody gets a single penny more than they "deserve" disgust me. If people like you had their way, we'd all still be working 16 hours a day in the mines for subsistence wage, because obviously we don't deserve better.
Wrong. I don't believe in keeping the same wage levels at all. I agree; hard working construction folk DESERVE MORE MONEY. a clothing store worker does not deserve the same amount. I'm sorry, its a comparison of value of jobs.
Why do engineers get paid more? Because they're fucking smart and spent their best years of life studying and slaving in college. If you partied your 20s away and didnt learn shit, fuck you, you deserve less money and a lower living standard (1 bedroom apartment, 1 car, etc. Still, no reason for that person to ever go hungry, thats not what I'm advocating for )
Why do grocery store sorters get paid less? My grandma does it for a job and its easy. If you can't see that, I cannot help you. Be realistic.
I merely believe that more valuable work should be a higher reward. I think people REALLY got offended at this, maybe because they are sad little people with no job living in a basement and blaming everyone else for their problems.
Then show your work. So far you've presented no actual arguments based on value, or indeed provided no numerical analysis at all. All you've done is asset that certain kinds of workers are more deserving of higher pay based on nothing but vibes about their intrinsic character (apparently construction workers are hard working but retail workers are not? Based on what? Why does whether they're hard working or not even matter when you're trying to claim this is about the value the work creates. If you actually believed that - and you don't - then it wouldn't matter how much of a hard worker they are). The only basis there seems to be for what work you deem worthy that I can glean is based on whether it's stereotypically men's work or women's work. So, sexism
Why do engineers get paid more? Because they’re fucking smart
So it's not to do with the value of the work then. It's about the virtues of your idea of the a platonic example of that kind of worker. "Engineers are smart so they are more deserving of wealth". Put aside that engineers are all individuals with different intelligence levels, and that most engineers I've met are dumb as rocks outside of their very narrow area is expertise.
If you partied your 20s away and didnt learn shit, fuck you, you deserve less money and a lower living standard
So again, nothing to do with the value of the work, and everything to do with your moral judgement of the people in question. You want people to be poor as punishment for not living the way you believe they should, and all the people who were just unlucky, disabled, naturally unintelligent, or simply didn't go into a line if work that you consider macho enough are all acceptable collateral damage to ensure that nobody gets off unpunished.
Still, no reason for that person to ever go hungry, thats not what I’m advocating for
Yes. It is. The minimum wage has been stagnant for decades, and is falling to subsistence levels. More than that, why do you care if there is "no reason for that person to ever go hungry"? You're already arguing that people should be impoverished for no reason, why not starved? It's just punishment for their laziness, afterall; if they wanted to make enough money to eat, they should have been responsible and started working at the factory when they were 10, rather than fucking around and not learning shit. "Fuck them" right? That's your argument, after all.
Why do grocery store sorters get paid less? My grandma does it for a job and its easy.
So, again, nothing to do with the value of the work, and everything to do with punishing people for not having it hard enough. Also lol; clearly you've never worked a high paying white collar job if you think grocery sorters have it easy.
And if your grandma works an easy job, explain to me why she deserves to live at all? Why shouldn't she die in the streets for refusing to work the mines?
I merely believe that more valuable work should be a higher reward.
Nonsense: none of what you said had anything to do with the value of the work and everything to do with punishing people for not living the way a Protestant psycho thinks is virtuous.
I think people REALLY got offended at this, maybe because they are sad little people with no job living in a basement and blaming everyone else for their problems.
Says the removed chucking a tantrum about the idea of people he deems lesser not being punished enough. And, you dumb fucking idiot, minimum wage doesn't apply to people with no job. This is literally about trying to make it so that people who do work don't have to live in a basement. You fucking stupid ghoul
First off, look in a mirror. Youre being a sexist fuck suggesting that women can't do construction work and men can't do cashier work. So that's on you. Plenty of women in engineering and construction, yes its a lesser amount, but there's no reason a woman can't do any of that work, so ill stop your strawman argument right there.
Side note, just calling everyone you dont agree with sexist is a huge part if the issue, and devaluing the term. So I'd suggest not doing that.
I never said anything about disabled folk. Thats a given, that they should be taken care of and not forced to be homeless.
I do admit, I shouldn't have even brought the character discussion into it. I just am sick of folks thinking we will have a utopia if the humans who are lazy by choice get everything given to them. Thats not how it works.
But let's try this. Take the roofer, and the walmart shelf stocker, have them swap jobs, and let me know which one thinks they should get paid more. Then, tell them now thrbwage has been raised and the stocker makes the same as the roofer. What happens then? Either the roofer quits and you have a worker shortage, OR the cost of roofs goes uo a HUGE amount, disproportionally affecting poor folk who need to fix their leaky roof.
See, you guys dont ever think beyond "give everyone money". Its a lot more complex than that.
Also when did I ever say grandma deserves to die because they work a lower value job?? I just dont think they need a $60/hr pay to be doing a job like that. Full health care and a living wage, OBVIOUSLY they need! Youre really twisting my words here.
Also the fact engineers you've met are "dumb" (take note I could infer you are being anti-neuro divergent here and believe anyone who is hyper focused and good at one skill but not other should just die, as you wrongfully stated to me. ) means nothing. Not sure if you know this, but engineers built EVERYTHING you use.
The fact that you are just insulting me is just sad frankly. I'm trying to actually have a conversation, without people twisting my words.
First off, look in a mirror. Youre being a sexist fuck suggesting that women can’t do construction work and men can’t do cashier work.
Lol, literally reduced to "no u"
suggesting that women can’t do construction work and men can’t do cashier work.
Lol, you lying little slug, you know damn well that I said construction is stereotypically men's work. You just have no response to that so you're going to lie about what I said.
So ill stop your strawman argument right there.
That's not what a strawman is you fucking moron. Ironically, you trying to claim I said women can't do construction is a strawman. But you know that, hence why you're doing the "accuse people of the thing you're actually doing" bullshit.
Side note, just calling everyone you dont agree with sexist
Hey look, another actual strawman. You dishonest little slug>
I never said anything about disabled folk.
Yes, you did, you fucking moron. Do you think minimum wage laws don't also apply to disabled people?
Thats a given, that they should be taken care of and not forced to be homeless.
Why is that a given? You've already argued that people who aren't "valuable" should live in poverty. And indeed that people who don't have the faculties to grind out higher education should be punished for it, which for many people, means punishing them for their disabilities. At the very least, you made it clear you are happy for disabled people to be collateral damage on order to ensure that nobody gets out unpunished for their lack of Christian work effort
I do admit, I shouldn’t have even brought the character discussion into it.
That was all you brought into it, that was the whole argument of your post: that people should be punished with low wages for their perceived character flaws
I just am sick of folks thinking we will have a utopia if the humans who are lazy by choice get everything given to them.
Speaking of fucking strawmen.
And you're ONCE a-fucking-gain getting into it about character discussions. It seems to be your sole obsession: the lazy must be punished!
Take the roofer, and the walmart shelf stocker, have them swap jobs, and let me know which one thinks they should get paid more.
Lol, my current job is way fucking easier and better paid than retail work, and basically every white collar worker I've ever met will tell you that the hardest jobs they've ever had were the worst paid.
Also, you're Once Again getting into about who deserves to be paid will based on how hard working they are. It's become abundantly clear that you never really believed this was about the value of work. Just the moral character.
Then, tell them now thrbwage has been raised and the stocker makes the same as the roofer.
If roofing was fine being paid minimum wage before (obviously they aren't actually paid minimum wage, not humouring your bullshit) then I do not see any reason why someone else being paid more should change that, unless, like you, they're motivated entirely by spite and cruelty.
Either the roofer quits
Lol yeah, I'm sure a lot of construction workers are going to quit their job to work minimum wage retail.
disproportionally affecting poor
Because wealthy people famously don't live in or own buildings. Fucking idiot.
See, you guys dont ever think beyond “give everyone money”.
Damn, you just love strawmanning. Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously when you're deliberately and dishonestly trying to reframe "we should raise the minimum wage to be inline with inflation and the rest of the western world" as "give everyone money". At that point, why not argue that it's unrealistic to pay people at all, just bring back slavery?
Also when did I ever say grandma deserves to die because they work a lower value job?
I asked you why she doesn't, based on the principles you were espousing. I note you can't respond to that, so you're lying about what I said.
I just dont think they need a $60/hr pay to be doing a job like that
Then why does she deserve a living wage at all? What are you basing any of this on? You say that people who don't meet your arbitrary standard of hard work deserve to be impoverished for it, why is that any different to someone who sets the standard higher? If she's not working 12 hours in the mine, why does she deserve to eat? It's an equally arbitrary position to yours, and, frankly, one when vastly more historical precedent.
Full health care and a living wage, OBVIOUSLY they need!
Why is that "OBVIOUS", exactly? You just say things and then get pissy when people ask you to justify them.
Youre really twisting my words here.
Bullshit. Quote the specific thing I said that you think twists your words.
take note I could infer you are being anti-neuro divergent
Bahaha. Are you really getting so desperate as to try this? Have some self respect. Fucking hell.
who is hyper focused and good at one skill but not other should just die, as you wrongfully stated to me.
What exactly is the point of just straight up lying about something me, you, and everyone reading this, know for a fact isn't true. You know I didn't say that, so either explain yourself or I'm just going to start doing the same thing and saying you support legalizing pedophilia.
Not sure if you know this, but engineers built EVERYTHING you use.
Damn, I guess construction workers are worthless then. Not that this anything you do with anything. Your whole fucking point was that non engineers deserve to not be paid well because they aren't "fucking SMART" like engineers, so I was pointing out that a lot of engineers aren't smart in the general sense, which means they should not be paid well by your own fucking standard, regardless of if they actually did "build EVERYTHING I use". Retail workers sold me everything I ever bought, but you still think they deserve poverty.
The fact that you are just insulting me is just sad frankly.
Lol, fuck off
I’m trying to actually have a conversation, without people twisting my words.
Fucking hell, you really are a dishonest piece of human garbage, aren't you?
How do you consistently have the worst possible takes on fucking everything. And then feel compelled to spew that disgusting shit that festers in your ugly brain out into the world. God you're such a small, vile person.
I never even stated i was against this. I'm taking a realist standpoint from conversations ive had with real life people on this very topic and the arguments I encounter. Your reply is reactionary and quite frankly immature.
Wow, you surely are a great conversationalist. Hopefully no more people like you come to Lemmy who can't have a discussion without losing it. Take some emotional intelligence classes anon.
136 Comments
thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world · 79 pts · 114d
How about we start throwing CEOs in prison when they break the law
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 113d
Rooskie91@discuss.online · 6 pts · 113d
Yeah I mean there's way more than one solution and we can do them all at the same time. Jail CEOs, tax the wealthy, increase minimum wage, increase union protections, tax inheritance ... The list goes on.
arrow74@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 113d
Both?
Chivera@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 113d
Both is good
porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 113d
Or just, yknow, anyway. I mean they definitely did something bad to be a CEO.
SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 113d
Good luck.
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world · 51 pts · 114d
I suppose it's nice to hear that there are a handful of legit progressives out there, but if we ever manage to get a living wage passed in this country, I hope it's tied to inflation so the capitalists can't so easily abuse it and gouge prices.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 6 pts · 113d
Inflation is measured disproportionally by commodity prices. That's why you can see consumer prices nearly double, and inflation is only mentioned as 5-10%.
The corporations can triple the prices on the shelves, and if the commodities they buy to produce those consumer products are more or less the same price, inflation numbers won't really budge much.
Minimum wage should be tied to cost-of-living, which also varies by region. If San Fransisco and backwoods Oklahoma are averaged together, that's not going to be a very useful metric.
Minimum wage in a given district should be a proportion of the cost of living for that district, such that, for example, a person working four 40 hour weeks (160 hours) should be able to meet the cost of all their basic necessities with a defined percentage of their income, say maybe 30% (although since it's a minimum, that percentage could reasonably be higher, but definitely no higher than 60%).
Of course, what necessities are included, and how to measure their cost needs to be clearly defined. I'd say as a baseline, that would include food, housing, utilities (including water, electric, heat, and honestly even internet and cell service because let's be honest, those are necessities these days), healthcare, and reasonable transportation based on what's available in the area (i.e. viable public transit or car-centric infrastructure). Arguments can be made to include other recurring expenses, such as clothes, but that would be harder to quantify. (Things like savings and discretionary expenses belong in the leftover percentage of income).
So if, for example, someone lives in a place where the cost of living is measured as $2000 per month, and say the minimum wage is tethered to the cost of living by a factor of 50%. That means the person should make at least $4000 for a month's worth of work. $4000 ÷ 160 hours = $25/hour, so that tracks with what they're pushing for.
Of course, some places (many places, these days), $2000 isn't enough to make ends meet. So cost-of-living should be calculated by district. And the specific percentage is negotiable. States with good legislators might deem 30% of minimum wage income should be enough to meet necessities. States with shitty representatives might say 60% of minimum wage income should be enough to meet necessities. And that can change the calculation drastically, so there's a lot of wiggle room. But the overall structure of the formula should be mandated nationwide, as well as a standard definition of necessities and how to measure them.
Lastly, this leaves room in the future for a particularly progressive Congress to change the definition of a work week to 30 hours or so. All that needs to change then is the number you divide the monthly income by (in this case, 120, so 4000/120 = $33/hour in our enlightened future).
Maeve@kbin.earth · -18 pts · 114d
It's not going to pass; and they're future faking (again!) to get people to vote for genocide.
qualia@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 113d
There're soft power advantages even for a Bill with an expected 1% chance of passing (GovTrack):
I'd rather have Democrats doing this type of strategy over sitting on their hands while they have no power. When it fails loudly in a hostile Congress it may accomplish more than a watered-down bill that quietly passes.
NotEasyBeingGreen@slrpnk.net · 4 pts · 113d
The right wing in America kept trying to pass anti-abortion laws for decades even though they were obviously unconstitutional, and here we are...
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 113d
Obama promised to codify Roe into law and didn't do so even though he had a supermajority.
Dems may not say it, but they love that abortion's an issue that they can fundraise off of, and they have no intention of making it explicitly legal nationwide.
Maeve@kbin.earth · 0 pts · 113d
Why is that? How many times could Dems have codified RvW, since SCOTUS ruled on it? Why didn't they?
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world · -10 pts · 114d
Yup.
mercano@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 113d
I’m in favor of both of these. It means we don’t have to relitigate the minimum wage battle every few years, and paves the way for moving away from tipping, which I can’t be alone in wanting.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 6 pts · 113d
Tethering minimum wage to median hourly wage is a good start, but might have some unintended yet foreseeable consequences, since it would incentivize employers to suppress wages to keep the median wage down, and thus lower minimum wage.
Far better would be to tether minimum wage to the cost-of-living. I explained in more detail in a different comment, but basically the formula has three variables: the monthly cost of necessities (area-dependent), the percentage of monthly income (at minimum wage) that should be expected to meet the cost of necessities (defined by legislation), and the number of hours that constitutes a month's work (also defined by legislation, for now it would be four 40-hour weeks, i.e. 160 hours).
So for example, if a state legislature chooses 50% as the proportion of monthly minimum-wage income that should be enough to meet necessities, and someone lives/works in a district where necessities cost $2000 per month, and we're using the standard workweek, the formula would look like this:
($2000 ÷ 50%) ÷ 160 = $4000 ÷ 160 = $25/hour
Which tracks with the legislation in the OP, but it's also a flexible formula which can be adapted as needed, leaves room for negotiation (e.g. states can choose what percentage to use, and whether COLA should be measured state-wide or by district) which should make it palatable to the widest audience, and it should also adjust over time as cost-of-living should be recalculated every year.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 113d
So like, the national bureau of economic research has price indeces at ridiculously granular levels. One time I was trying to find an estimate for a client who lived near Stockton, CA and I didn't just have to choose the right type of price index, I had like seven different locations in Stockton they were tracking too. It was just one exercise after another of follow this table to that table to that table which eventually led to actual data, and it could all have been beautifully simplified into a real database instead of the excel spreadsheet we all had to work with, but times are tough in the ledger mines.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 4 pts · 113d
Sounds like they could create jobs by migrating their data to a real database...
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 113d
They probably have it all in one but only let us plebes have access to excel sheets
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 113d
That's a weak incentive because the first employer to suppress wages below their optimal level would face a disadvantage versus the other businesses.
Fredselfish@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 113d
Yes so awesome they always do theater shit like this when they know fuck well it will never pass. Also always close to election time. But if they won the majority and if every Dem voted yes and it could pass. This bill wouldn't leave committee or they have a few safe Dem seats that will vote No. So I am not exited about this bill which is just fake bullshit to make you think the party on your side and not the rich.
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 113d
This does nothing to fix the problem of the “gilded” part. The rich are obscenely so, and they control the State. That must be dealt wirh before anything will actually get better.
Squizzy@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 113d
It helps.
People wont be forced to work multiple jobs.
TammyTobacco@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 113d
It's putting a bandaid on a life threatening wound. The minimum wage needs raised, but that won't help anything long term.
Squizzy@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 112d
Perfection is the enemy of good, or in this case progress.
There will be no single piece of legislation to fix everything. There will be lots and this is one.
AntiBullyRanger@ani.social · 1 pts · 112d
The enemy of cures is symptom relief.
No single Representative FPtP Elector will fix the distance from civilian emancipation of capitalist slavery.
CaptPretentious@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 112d
It won't help. People will still work two jobs.
Every place in America is going to do one thing and one thing only. Every last place is going to jack up prices because they are not going to take the hit. Why not charge you $20 for a small coffee. Minimum wage is $25 what does it matter. It's still cost less than minimum wage... Why shouldn't they jack up rent, insurance, groceries, etc. Corporate greed isn't going to go away just because minimum wage goes up. Corporate greed is going to match and then beat anything. All you're going to be saying in a couple years after this goes in if it went in is that we need to raise minimum wage again.
Unless something is done about the busted system, all were doing is making profit numbers go up (despite the value of the dollar tanking).
Squizzy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 111d
Right well they have already won with you here telling everyone not to bother unless they have a magic wand.
CaptPretentious@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 107d
How tf am I the bad guy here? I said, unless the busted system is fixed (aka the root problem) we're just going to be back at this exact same thing in a few years. That's massive inflation. Which you called, fixing the root problem, requiring a magic wand.
But somehow I'm the bad guy? Because I dare say the short-term fix isn't a long-term fix?
Squizzy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 107d
Because you are arguing against progress with the argument it is effectively useless. It isnt and it is a step in the right direction.
You didnt argue that the short term fix wasnt the long term fixyou agued the short term fix is an asset to the long term problem.
Data shows increases in min wage to liveable wage do not get proportionally passed onto consumers ad if they did they would create anopportunity for someone to charge 10 dollars for coffee per your example.
CaptPretentious@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 105d
Does that data exclusively focus on the last 6 years, with companies reporting profits that put previous years to shame? Going to guess no. Does that data exclusively focus on just the US, or does it add in nations that it would work.
Because here's nvidia. From 2012-2019, they operated at 1 billion a quarter, ended on 3 billion in 2019. They did 68 billion last quarter.
You want me to post a bunch of other stocks? I can and they'll all tell the same story. If wages go up, then these companies are going to increase prices. Have you seen gas? Eggs? The slightest bit that might hurt their proffits gets passed to the customer and then a little more for more profit. Should we talk about how housing costs have gone up? All the houses near my parents, all doubled to quadrupled in "value" on Realtor.com one day. A house that was maybe 112K jumped to 300K in a single day, all over. Or car prices being closer to 100k than 20k.
2018, I probably would have agreed with you. Plenty of evidence in Europe of that working. But, this is America. We have data that shows, unless you solve the root problem first... you've not solved the problem. The recent trends, in America, clearly state that these CEOS, these people who went from maybe having a billion dollars (which is already pretty fucked) to being 100-billionaires to trying to become the first trillionaire.... Maybe, it's time to accept reality and increasing the minimum wage by itself, won't do shit. You'll just have 10$ coffees or $25 Happy Meals.
Squizzy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 105d
Hi, yes the data is from California 2025, one of the highest cost of living areas in the US.
I am not saying dont fix further issues but you will die of a fever waiting on the cure.
Your last line says it all, the data shows this to be untrue and your line acts as if I am aguing for this as a single fix all action.
You are arguing emotionally and in bad faith.
AntiBullyRanger@ani.social · 2 pts · 113d
They will.
Squizzy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 112d
I dont see the relation here?
AntiBullyRanger@ani.social · 1 pts · 112d
They’ll cut your hours, like they did in Covid, instead of paying you a living wage. Thus you’ll still be forced to work for multiple slavers.
Squizzy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 111d
Who cares? If you have two twenty hour jobs at 25 an hour?
such negative people in here.
AntiBullyRanger@ani.social · 0 pts · 111d
All you said that you're financially&economically illiterate. Try learning something for a change.
Squizzy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 109d
Hey cool pop science graphics, truly the epitome of educational.
Here is a paper from Berkley showing the effects of increased minimum wage did not impact employment, did not significantly or proportionally increase costs and absolutely did put workers in a better position.
Elasticity was covered in my studies yes. Thanks for linking, if I ever forget the basics of economics I'll be sure to check back.
https://irle.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Effects-of-a-20-Minimum-Wage-Evidence-from-Granular-Data-on-Wages-Employment-and-Prices-April-1-2026.pdf
Matriks404@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 113d
I wonder how the biggest economy in the world has minimal wage that is less than minimal wage in Poland (~31.40 PLN/h → ~$8.52 USD/h).
polle@feddit.org · 16 pts · 113d
That is exactly the answer. The economy is based on ripping off people.
elucubra@sopuli.xyz · 7 pts · 113d
Not only that. Since in countries most jobs are included in collective bargaining, the minimums, by sector are always higher.
I had a restaurant in Spain, and I had to pay almost triple minimum.
belochka@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 113d
Poland is an EU country, it's not poor at all by world standards.
And size of the economy doesn't have much to do with social policies.
LastYearsIrritant@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 112d
Cause different parts of the country also set their own minimum wage, some states have $15/hr. Some cities have $18/hr or more.
High cost of living areas and low cost of living areas don't really need the same wage floor.
Yes, the national minimum wage is far too low, but individual states and cities also have the ability to raise it locally, and many already do.
Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club · 17 pts · 114d
Is that above the poverty line?
adarza@lemmy.ca · 8 pts · 113d
it wouldn't be.. once the rich crooks that own everything jack all the prices and rents and rates up to 'compensate'.
Watermark710@piefed.social · 5 pts · 113d
Yes, by a lot.
The 2026 Federal Poverty Guidelines (FPL), released by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), set the poverty threshold at $15,960 annually for a one-person household in the contiguous U.S.
$25/hr x 40 hours a week x 52 weeks in a year comes out to $52,000 a year, which is more than triple the poverty level.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 113d
For most of the country yes
Fizz@lemmy.nz · 1 pts · 113d
It puts them above 98% of the world and should be enough to live on.
Butterphinger@lemmy.zip · 16 pts · 114d
Can we hang the pedo first?
Which? All of them.
AntiBullyRanger@ani.social · 15 pts · 113d
Threadly reminder, you have been stolen, for centuries.
Raising a salary doesn't increase your true compensation for the fruits of your labor. You should be asking for dividends.
Capitalists hate this.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 113d
Does it matter what you call them if you get the same amount of cash? It all spends the same.
Don't ask for dividends, ask for equity. Ownership. see if they have an ESOP (Employee Stock Ownership Plan. That is a term of art: it's not one you should paraphrase, but the acronym is pronouncable and hr will recognize it) as that is the most common and easiest way for business owners to compensate workers by giving them a piece of the business. At least in statesia, ymmv elsewhere.
AntiBullyRanger@ani.social · 2 pts · 113d
It matters greatly!
Do you confuse a slice of a pie for an ingredient of a pie?
With your slice, you can reinvest in whatever markets you wish, tax free ofc.
CX
Interesting edit you made there.
But sure, being part owner of where you work has its merits, but I am talking about labor for work produced. You can't really yield equity on service economics.
But at the least you see the problem with Congress evading the root of the problem.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 113d
Okay, short story a business can't just "pay you in dividends" because there is very strict law around the issuance of dividends. If you already owned enough of the company that you could be effectively paid via your stock, you would be accepting stock options as a major part of your compensation package, not dividends.
(this is a simplification assuming only one class of stock, but) If they issue dividends, they go out to everyone who owns stock at the same ratio. You don't just get to issue dividends to one person.
What you are talking about is a structural feature that typically only corporate sole proprietors get to take advantage of, and they have better ways to pull a sneaky on the irs. Like seriously, you're throwing in some additional taxes that don't need to be paid in there compared to if we just did a disbursement. It all depends what your goals are.
AntiBullyRanger@ani.social · 1 pts · 113d
If Congress could do something about perverse laws🤔
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 113d
i'm sorry, let's have congress change the law because you want to quibble over what you call your income?
AntiBullyRanger@ani.social · 1 pts · 113d
More Congress is working in its best interest:
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 113d
how about giving me something useful instead of just talking past me because i mentioned a word that set you off? I could use a good recipe for hulatang
Donebrach@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 113d
at this point it should be $45/hr
qevlarr@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 113d
What we need is a maximum income including capital gains
__Lost__@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 113d
The issue though is that the problematic wealthy don't have an income, they own assets that they borrow against instead of selling them so no capital gains taxes get paid.
qevlarr@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 113d
Those are all loopholes we could patch if there would be political will to do so. Unfortunately they're all rich fucks themselves and beholden to the donor class
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 112d
Wealth tax. More specifically, a securities tax: a tax on the stocks, bonds, and other financial assets used to build wealth.
Payable not in dollars, but in shares of the security. Every year, the SEC transfers 1% of all securities to IRS liquidators, who sell off those shares slowly over time. Liquidated shares may constitute no more than 1% of total traded volume at any time period.
Natural Persons (as opposed to artificial entities like corporations) may exempt up to $10 million worth of shares from taxation. This makes securities - the "means of production" - much more valuable to the working class than to the ultra-rich problem class.
A securities tax is the only feasible way of effectively taxing the ultra rich. As you noted, they easily avoid both income and capital gains taxes. A direct tax on their wealth-generating assets pushes those assets out of their hands and I to working-class portfolios.
We also need to increase the capital gains tax: it needs to be considerably higher than income tax.
And we need a punitively high top-tier income tax rate, like the 91% rate we had in the 1950s. Nobody will ever pay that tax: they will avoid it either by lowering their revenue, or increasing their deductible expenses, like payroll. Better for them to spend it on something they can use than just giving it to the IRS.
hark@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 113d
It won't end the new gilded age, but it can maybe help ease things. Chances are that companies will raise prices far beyond increased labor costs and blame the minimum wage increase. They can do this because there's too little competition in too many industries.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 112d
it wont past and this more performative for the Dems, they have been having unfavorable polling as of late in regards to israel/gaza, inaction against trump,,,,etc.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 113d
That would si a hell of a lot to ease the burden most people are feeling. Hell, my wife and I could back off to 1 FTE each
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 113d
It’s a great idea, but under the current circumstances, it’s performative. And great, popular ideas like this always seem to be presented performatively in contexts this by the DNC, but never when they’re actually fucking in charge of shit - at least, they have for as long as I’ve been paying attention to politics.
cass27@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 113d
I'm already forced to do the work of 3 people and it took months to find this job at all. The system behind this job market disaster obviously urgently needs drastic changes but I feel like this would only put even more people out of work or doing the work of their newly fired coworkers
BenevolentOne@infosec.pub · 6 pts · 113d
Weirdly, giving people money to spend props up the businesses that depend on people spending money. Who knew? (Besides Keynes, FDR's entire cabinet, and anyone who's read a macro textbook since 1945.
DJKJuicy@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 113d
Anything that does not tie minimum wage to the CPI is just stupid. Really? They're all just sitting in a room jerking each other off, aren't they.
GarboDog@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 113d
Ok we’re not gonna sit here and be like people don’t deserve it like minimum wage definitely needs to be raised, however this will diminish the currency and companies will raise prices in retaliation: further enforcing the currency’s diminishing value. Yes-raise minimum wage but also tack on max wage like you can’t make more than 5x than the lowest paid person in your company, a wealth tax and actually regulate the market to keep companies needlessly raising prices or undercutting other businesses and allowing monopolies. Thats its way more effective than only raising minimum wage.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 112d
Yeah, we need to establish not just a minimum wage, but also a "standard" wage. Businesses who only hire low wage workers should not exist. Businesses should be strictly limited on the proportion of labor they hire at "substandard" rates.
cmeu@lemmy.world · -5 pts · 113d
Raise the bar and suddenly everything else gets more expensive as fatcats try to capture all that new discretionary income that the poor have..
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 113d
No, elasticity is not infinite. This has been proven multiple times. You're spreading misinformation and need to take an economics class.
cmeu@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 112d
I don't think I said anything about Infinity. Tell me one thing which is truly infinite.. Greed may be close.
Are you saying that increasing income for the same work can't lead to inflation? Or that businesses aren't opportunistic and interested in maximizing revenue?
They will charge what the market will bear.. and the market will suddenly be able to bear just a little bit more 🤷♂️
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 112d
I am not going to teach you how elasticity works
SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 113d
Somebody on a different post just said to pin the minimum wage to an inflation index.
cmeu@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 112d
That's an interesting idea though inflation often doesn't match affordability of consumer goods. Saw a different thread recently where that was discussed - inflation gets measured on commodities, not the end products people actually buy. Explaining why some products can easily cost 150-200% more when inflation itself goes up just a little. Plus 70% of all statistics are made up, you know
SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 112d
There has to be a right way to do it.
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 109d
Pay your employees a living wage.
echo@lemmy.today · -5 pts · 114d
Yay! Public masturbation instead of actually fucking doing something. What happened to impeaching the shit stain that keeps desecrating the constitution?
JasonDJ@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 113d
Teflon Don isn't gonna get impeached anytime soon. Can't even get enough people in the house to introduce the articles.
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works · -7 pts · 112d
OK the problem I always see with this. Let's say I make $35 an hour. Shouldnt my salary now go up to like $70 since I was a higher value worker from that time? That won't happen.
I agree people deserve to live in moderate comfort ( a 1 bedroom apartment and a small car is fine for many). But I'm sorry, the dummy on tik Tok all day that barely can do their job at a pizza joint should not make almost the same money that I do providing industrial service knowledge that makes products you use every day. Some jobs are far more valuable than others, in real life.
Thats why musicians get paid nothing and construction workers get bank. Because their service is much more valuable in the real world.
I am always the bad guy in these convos. But admit it. You know the shitheads I'm talking about. They do not deserve that amount of pay. Not every poor person is secretly rain man if they just had money. A lot of people are just dumb.
Again, yes, give them enough to live on, but a lazy and unskilled person doesn't deserve land and a house and fancy things that other people worked their asses off for.
FluorideMind@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 112d
Your pay wouldn't go up immediately unless you have a decent boss. But the economy would mostly catch up in a year or two.
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 112d
I also feel like in scummy america world, all the prices of everything will just shoot up like rent and food. So then me, with the previously higher paying job, would be making less overall
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 111d
That's going to happen anyway champ.
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 111d
But his status might be diminished if people he considers beneath him have enough money to buy food.
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 110d
Jfc you people really live in little bubble. I am speaking realistically. You realize lemmings are NOT the majority right ?
People have different jobs that offer different levels of value . thats it. I should have put it that way from the beginning.
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 110d
And some people are so insecure in their value that they want others to starve.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 110d
Your entire world view seems to heavily lean on the childish idea that you and your alone live in “the real world”. Literal protagonist syndrome
phoenixz@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 111d
You're missing the point where people at least deserve enough to survive, or gasp maybe even enjoy their lives a little bit.
You're also missing the point where the minimum wage hadn't been updated for decades and maybe was remotely reasonable back in the 1970's but, alas, we're not living in the 1970's, we're living in 2026 and $7.25 (was it?) doesn't buy you shit now.
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 111d
No I get that. Notice I didnt say just survive. I said living , so yes, able to have fun here and there.
I'm trying to make the point that among many class working folk is the reason they vote republican Instead of democrat, because democrats want to "take all their money" and " pay people $40/hr to flip burgers". Yes , they're idiots, but there is a little truth to that as I stated.
Note I'm not one of those people. Merely trying to break the Lemmy bubble and let you see into the real world for a moment.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 111d
The absolute arrogance of thinking that your experience is "the real world". Serious protagonist syndrome. And no, there's no truth to what you stated.
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works · -2 pts · 110d
OK genius, explain how. Explain how a roofer working 60 hrs a week in July deserves the same level of pay as a checker at Walmart.
That is it.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 110d
Because the work needs to get done.
Also, nobody said anything about "the same level of pay", you through this tantrum just at the idea that they would make "more than they deserve"
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works · -2 pts · 110d
? You think someone is just going to choose to be a roofer in July over being a cashier st Walmart?
This is what im saying. You guys are severely misunderstanding the real world.
I would wager that none of you have ever worked construction or any hard jobs that actually create what you use to live. Your apartment ? Built by construction workers. You think that building would have just appeared out of the goodwill of volunteer construction workers ? Fuck no. Sure some people volunteer but its a very very very small minority.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 110d
Fucking hell, this really is like a religious mantra to you
Sharkticon@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 112d
I simply do not have the energy to list all the ways I find you utterly vile and contemptible after having read this comment.
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 111d
No problem. This is not even a real conversation, and you are the reason people dont vote. All emotion and zero logic.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 111d
You didn't apply any logic though, you just made a lot of unfounded assertions needed on your feelings about things. You really are a vile little slug.
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 110d
You applied zero logic with this comment.
I agree with you though, not worth arguing here with folks who'd rather insult than engage. I'm losing the energy.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 109d
Fucking hell, you're really reduced to "no u!"?
joan@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 112d
Nobody deserves anything more than someone else
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works · -3 pts · 111d
As someone in the real world I'm sorry, I don't agree.
To the extent we have it now? Hell no, I do agree with you. No one should have billions while there are people working 3 jobs to pay rent.
But, to the point that the person building houses deserves the same as a clothing store employee ? Fuck no. If you think they do, your not being real at all. There are levels of value people bring to society. Its always been that way.
Its not black and white. Nuance on Lemmy is often disregarded.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 111d
Everyone lives in the real world, dipshit. Are you a literal child who hasn't learnt that other people are real yet?
Why the fuck not? They both perform demanded labour. I can only assume this bizarre statement is motivated by sexism.
For example, people like you bring no value to society, and we would be better off if you died.
The nuance of "some people are just inferior and deserve to live a subsistence existence"
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 110d
You've twisted everything ive said and just resorted to insults. This isnt a rational conversation.
Go back to reddit please.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 109d
"you've twisted everything I've said" is not a fucking rational argument, it's just you not having a response to my points while being too much of a whiny piss baby to admit it.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 111d
The hardest working people I know make shitall, and the lazy ones who don't do anything useful make bank. I'd rather pizza place workers make a living wage for the thankless work they do then overpayed middle manager ghouls get to feel like bigshots.
People like you are so obsessed with making sure nobody gets a single penny more than they "deserve" disgust me. If people like you had their way, we'd all still be working 16 hours a day in the mines for subsistence wage, because obviously we don't deserve better.
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 110d
Wrong. I don't believe in keeping the same wage levels at all. I agree; hard working construction folk DESERVE MORE MONEY. a clothing store worker does not deserve the same amount. I'm sorry, its a comparison of value of jobs.
Why do engineers get paid more? Because they're fucking smart and spent their best years of life studying and slaving in college. If you partied your 20s away and didnt learn shit, fuck you, you deserve less money and a lower living standard (1 bedroom apartment, 1 car, etc. Still, no reason for that person to ever go hungry, thats not what I'm advocating for )
Why do grocery store sorters get paid less? My grandma does it for a job and its easy. If you can't see that, I cannot help you. Be realistic.
I merely believe that more valuable work should be a higher reward. I think people REALLY got offended at this, maybe because they are sad little people with no job living in a basement and blaming everyone else for their problems.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 110d
Then show your work. So far you've presented no actual arguments based on value, or indeed provided no numerical analysis at all. All you've done is asset that certain kinds of workers are more deserving of higher pay based on nothing but vibes about their intrinsic character (apparently construction workers are hard working but retail workers are not? Based on what? Why does whether they're hard working or not even matter when you're trying to claim this is about the value the work creates. If you actually believed that - and you don't - then it wouldn't matter how much of a hard worker they are). The only basis there seems to be for what work you deem worthy that I can glean is based on whether it's stereotypically men's work or women's work. So, sexism
So it's not to do with the value of the work then. It's about the virtues of your idea of the a platonic example of that kind of worker. "Engineers are smart so they are more deserving of wealth". Put aside that engineers are all individuals with different intelligence levels, and that most engineers I've met are dumb as rocks outside of their very narrow area is expertise.
So again, nothing to do with the value of the work, and everything to do with your moral judgement of the people in question. You want people to be poor as punishment for not living the way you believe they should, and all the people who were just unlucky, disabled, naturally unintelligent, or simply didn't go into a line if work that you consider macho enough are all acceptable collateral damage to ensure that nobody gets off unpunished.
Yes. It is. The minimum wage has been stagnant for decades, and is falling to subsistence levels. More than that, why do you care if there is "no reason for that person to ever go hungry"? You're already arguing that people should be impoverished for no reason, why not starved? It's just punishment for their laziness, afterall; if they wanted to make enough money to eat, they should have been responsible and started working at the factory when they were 10, rather than fucking around and not learning shit. "Fuck them" right? That's your argument, after all.
So, again, nothing to do with the value of the work, and everything to do with punishing people for not having it hard enough. Also lol; clearly you've never worked a high paying white collar job if you think grocery sorters have it easy.
And if your grandma works an easy job, explain to me why she deserves to live at all? Why shouldn't she die in the streets for refusing to work the mines?
Nonsense: none of what you said had anything to do with the value of the work and everything to do with punishing people for not living the way a Protestant psycho thinks is virtuous.
Says the removed chucking a tantrum about the idea of people he deems lesser not being punished enough. And, you dumb fucking idiot, minimum wage doesn't apply to people with no job. This is literally about trying to make it so that people who do work don't have to live in a basement. You fucking stupid ghoul
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 110d
First off, look in a mirror. Youre being a sexist fuck suggesting that women can't do construction work and men can't do cashier work. So that's on you. Plenty of women in engineering and construction, yes its a lesser amount, but there's no reason a woman can't do any of that work, so ill stop your strawman argument right there.
Side note, just calling everyone you dont agree with sexist is a huge part if the issue, and devaluing the term. So I'd suggest not doing that.
I never said anything about disabled folk. Thats a given, that they should be taken care of and not forced to be homeless.
I do admit, I shouldn't have even brought the character discussion into it. I just am sick of folks thinking we will have a utopia if the humans who are lazy by choice get everything given to them. Thats not how it works.
But let's try this. Take the roofer, and the walmart shelf stocker, have them swap jobs, and let me know which one thinks they should get paid more. Then, tell them now thrbwage has been raised and the stocker makes the same as the roofer. What happens then? Either the roofer quits and you have a worker shortage, OR the cost of roofs goes uo a HUGE amount, disproportionally affecting poor folk who need to fix their leaky roof.
See, you guys dont ever think beyond "give everyone money". Its a lot more complex than that.
Also when did I ever say grandma deserves to die because they work a lower value job?? I just dont think they need a $60/hr pay to be doing a job like that. Full health care and a living wage, OBVIOUSLY they need! Youre really twisting my words here.
Also the fact engineers you've met are "dumb" (take note I could infer you are being anti-neuro divergent here and believe anyone who is hyper focused and good at one skill but not other should just die, as you wrongfully stated to me. ) means nothing. Not sure if you know this, but engineers built EVERYTHING you use.
The fact that you are just insulting me is just sad frankly. I'm trying to actually have a conversation, without people twisting my words.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 109d
Lol, literally reduced to "no u"
Lol, you lying little slug, you know damn well that I said construction is stereotypically men's work. You just have no response to that so you're going to lie about what I said.
That's not what a strawman is you fucking moron. Ironically, you trying to claim I said women can't do construction is a strawman. But you know that, hence why you're doing the "accuse people of the thing you're actually doing" bullshit.
Hey look, another actual strawman. You dishonest little slug>
Yes, you did, you fucking moron. Do you think minimum wage laws don't also apply to disabled people?
Why is that a given? You've already argued that people who aren't "valuable" should live in poverty. And indeed that people who don't have the faculties to grind out higher education should be punished for it, which for many people, means punishing them for their disabilities. At the very least, you made it clear you are happy for disabled people to be collateral damage on order to ensure that nobody gets out unpunished for their lack of Christian work effort
That was all you brought into it, that was the whole argument of your post: that people should be punished with low wages for their perceived character flaws
Speaking of fucking strawmen.
And you're ONCE a-fucking-gain getting into it about character discussions. It seems to be your sole obsession: the lazy must be punished!
Lol, my current job is way fucking easier and better paid than retail work, and basically every white collar worker I've ever met will tell you that the hardest jobs they've ever had were the worst paid.
Also, you're Once Again getting into about who deserves to be paid will based on how hard working they are. It's become abundantly clear that you never really believed this was about the value of work. Just the moral character.
If roofing was fine being paid minimum wage before (obviously they aren't actually paid minimum wage, not humouring your bullshit) then I do not see any reason why someone else being paid more should change that, unless, like you, they're motivated entirely by spite and cruelty.
Lol yeah, I'm sure a lot of construction workers are going to quit their job to work minimum wage retail.
Because wealthy people famously don't live in or own buildings. Fucking idiot.
Damn, you just love strawmanning. Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously when you're deliberately and dishonestly trying to reframe "we should raise the minimum wage to be inline with inflation and the rest of the western world" as "give everyone money". At that point, why not argue that it's unrealistic to pay people at all, just bring back slavery?
I asked you why she doesn't, based on the principles you were espousing. I note you can't respond to that, so you're lying about what I said.
Then why does she deserve a living wage at all? What are you basing any of this on? You say that people who don't meet your arbitrary standard of hard work deserve to be impoverished for it, why is that any different to someone who sets the standard higher? If she's not working 12 hours in the mine, why does she deserve to eat? It's an equally arbitrary position to yours, and, frankly, one when vastly more historical precedent.
Why is that "OBVIOUS", exactly? You just say things and then get pissy when people ask you to justify them.
Bullshit. Quote the specific thing I said that you think twists your words.
Bahaha. Are you really getting so desperate as to try this? Have some self respect. Fucking hell.
What exactly is the point of just straight up lying about something me, you, and everyone reading this, know for a fact isn't true. You know I didn't say that, so either explain yourself or I'm just going to start doing the same thing and saying you support legalizing pedophilia.
Damn, I guess construction workers are worthless then. Not that this anything you do with anything. Your whole fucking point was that non engineers deserve to not be paid well because they aren't "fucking SMART" like engineers, so I was pointing out that a lot of engineers aren't smart in the general sense, which means they should not be paid well by your own fucking standard, regardless of if they actually did "build EVERYTHING I use". Retail workers sold me everything I ever bought, but you still think they deserve poverty.
Lol, fuck off
Fucking hell, you really are a dishonest piece of human garbage, aren't you?
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 109d
Yeah. It's unfortunate that people you consider lesser than you get paid at all, huh?
sudo@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 112d
How do you consistently have the worst possible takes on fucking everything. And then feel compelled to spew that disgusting shit that festers in your ugly brain out into the world. God you're such a small, vile person.
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works · -3 pts · 112d
Oh boy.
I never even stated i was against this. I'm taking a realist standpoint from conversations ive had with real life people on this very topic and the arguments I encounter. Your reply is reactionary and quite frankly immature.
sudo@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 112d
k
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 111d
Wow, you surely are a great conversationalist. Hopefully no more people like you come to Lemmy who can't have a discussion without losing it. Take some emotional intelligence classes anon.
Blocked.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 111d
Dipshit, you fucking lost it at the suggestion that people you think you're superior to deserve fair pay.
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 110d
No one is superior per se. Jobs have differing values. Why can no lemming see this? Stuck in your little bubble worlds I'm afraid.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 110d
Your entire world view seems to heavily lean on the childish idea that you and your alone live in "the real world". Literal protagonist syndrome
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 111d
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 110d
Good meme lol
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 110d
Your reply is reactionary and quite frankly immature.