CA: Deal Reached to Raise Minimum Wage to $15/hour

[muon2]

I find the inflationary aspect of this issue to be fascinating. In the 2013 SOTU Obama called for the federal minimum wage to rise to $9.00 by 2015. In 2014 Obama called for it to rise to $10.10 and backed it up with a federal order for $10.10 effective in 2015. That's 12% inflation in one year for the President's request.

Later in 2015 Seattle passes it's increase in the minimum wage starting at $11 in 2015 and rising to $15 in 2019. $15 seems to be the rallying cry, but note that's a 67% increase over Obama's original request. Furthermore these increases become adjusted for inflation after they reach their target. So presumably that target should make some economic sense.

CNN/Money has an interactive graph of the inflation adjusted federal minimum wage. Its peak was in 1968 at $10.68 in 2015 dollars. Between 1961 and 1980 the inflation adjusted minimum wage was between $7.67 and $10.68. Only one year was under $8.00 and only two over $10.00. The median during those 20 years was $9.28. I was even a minimum wage earner during part of that period.

After the 2014 SOTU I looked up the federal data on the positive impact of minimum wage based on additional money spent by those wage earners vs the negative impact based on money lost due to job losses. The break even point in 2013 was about $9.00 which is consistent with the high range from the 1960's and 70's. Accounting for inflation since 2013 would put the point at $9.16.

The two pieces of actual economic data suggest that the federal minimum wage ought to be around $9.25. That's actually very much in agreement with Obama's original request in 2013. It's also reasonable to expect that localities with high costs of living might also have a higher minimum wage. I'd just rather see it derived from actual economic studies rather than a gut feeling for what is right.

[muon2]

The two pieces of actual economic data suggest that the federal minimum wage ought to be around $9.25. That's actually very much in agreement with Obama's original request in 2013. It's also reasonable to expect that localities with high costs of living might also have a higher minimum wage. I'd just rather see it derived from actual economic studies rather than a gut feeling for what is right.

Well I think the push for $15 is more so because costs of living have made even $10 impractical in a lot of areas. In the context of inflation, I think what you're saying is definitely correct, but people now want wages they can eek out a meager existence on.

I find myself in constant flux on the $15 min. wage debate, as it does seem pretty high, but at the same time I sympathize a lot with the people who need this. My belief is that the 2 parties need to come together and do whatever it takes to bring wages up in this country while keeping unemployment down. If they don't want to risk harm from a $15 min. wage, then they need to get serious about labor issues in this country.

If they don't, the people will continue to push for these things where they can, and what they push for may not always be good for the state/country.

I've heard the living wage argument, but in my area most minimum wage earners are not the primary source of household income, so the rationale doesn't hold up. When the question was on the IL ballot recently, I heard more concern from governmental units hiring part-time and seasonal employees than from private firms for entry-level work. Private firms tended to already be at $9.00 or more.

OTOH I know there are localities where there are a significant number of households that depend on the minimum wage for the household income, then as I noted those localities can make their own case for a higher local minimum wage. I also know the fact that the federal minimum hasn't kept up with inflation has disproportionally impacted the rural poor, particularly in the South. I like the idea of tiered minimums, but some groups don't seem to be interested in that outcome.

[muon2]

Some the problem blocking cooperation on the minimum raise is the relative reaction times of the two parties. I noted the recent timeline of proposals in my earlier post. In IL by early 2015 the Pubs were presenting minimum wage increases more aggressive than Obama's initial 2013 proposals - $11/hour by 2020. Unfortunately they were well behind the Dems at that point that were all in for $15. Net result - nothing happened.

I've seen this often - progressives will present an idea and complain that conservatives aren't with it. Conservatives are inherently, um conservative, so it takes them a while to come around. By the time the conservatives get on board, even if only in a couple of years, progressives have sometimes pushed the original idea beyond the point of reasonableness. They are then so far apart that the sides can't talk about the original, reasonable request.

[muon2]

I've seen this often - progressives will present an idea and complain that conservatives aren't with it. Conservatives are inherently, um conservative, so it takes them a while to come around. By the time the conservatives get on board, even if only in a couple of years, progressives have sometimes pushed the original idea beyond the point of reasonableness. They are then so far apart that the sides can't talk about the original, reasonable request.

In the US, more often that not what happens is the exact opposite (see Obamacare, which is used to be the GOP's alternative to single-payer).

As I have detailed on other threads, Obamacare is not a counterexample. There were already bipartisan bills for universal coverage in 2009, but rewarding election year supporters got in their way. Even if it was, my point stands and a proposal that was significantly different than the discussions then underway was going to need more time to move conservatives even as Obamacare evolved further from the form in which it was presented in early 2009. It didn't take the time to converge with other proposals then extant. It was rushed to beat a Senate filibuster.

[muon2]

As I have detailed on other threads, Obamacare is not a counterexample. There were already bipartisan bills for universal coverage in 2009, but rewarding election year supporters got in their way. Even if it was, my point stands and a proposal that was significantly different than the discussions then underway was going to need more time to move conservatives even as Obamacare evolved further from the form in which it was presented in early 2009. It didn't take the time to converge with other proposals then extant. It was rushed to beat a Senate filibuster.

Yeah, it was "rushed" after "only" 6 months of deliberations where Democrats constantly watered down the bill only for the Republicans to move even further the goalposts.
Not to mention that Mike Enzi later admitted that they were negotiating in bad faith and never intended to support the bill, no matter how many concessions they extracted.
That's some nice revisionist bullcrap you got there.

Any watering down and concessions made after the summer 2009 recess had nothing to do with Pub demands. Those were to respond to demands from reluctant Dems. I was referring to negotiations based on other bills like Wyden-Bennett which took place before the summer of 2009. The summer recess was the watershed when the members went back to districts and got an earful from opponents at town halls. Yes, that hardened Pub opposition and pretty much ended debate along the lines being drafted for that year. I stand by my claims that by keeping the employer mandate in the bill (the part most detested by the Chamber of Commerce and ironically the part that most kept the plan from being universal coverage) the Dems cut off their best chance to rebuild support across the aisle at a later date.

I also stand by my timeline and the Dems strategy in the Senate to pass Obamacare. After the death of Kennedy in Aug 2009 the Senate Dems knew the clock was ticking. Rather than slowing down and trying to craft a truly bipartisan bill as the furor from the summer wore off, they opted to accelerate and go for a cloture vote on strict party lines in the same year. That succeeded on Dec 23, 2009 after making changes to get the last couple of Dems on board. The election of Scott Brown the following month ended the filibuster-proof majority.

[muon2]

Any watering down and concessions made after the summer 2009 recess had nothing to do with Pub demands. Those were to respond to demands from reluctant Dems. I was referring to negotiations based on other bills like Wyden-Bennett which took place before the summer of 2009. The summer recess was the watershed when the members went back to districts and got an earful from opponents at town halls. Yes, that hardened Pub opposition and pretty much ended debate along the lines being drafted for that year. I stand by my claims that by keeping the employer mandate in the bill (the part most detested by the Chamber of Commerce and ironically the part that most kept the plan from being universal coverage) the Dems cut off their best chance to rebuild support across the aisle at a later date.

I also stand by my timeline and the Dems strategy in the Senate to pass Obamacare. After the death of Kennedy in Aug 2009 the Senate Dems knew the clock was ticking. Rather than slowing down and trying to craft a truly bipartisan bill as the furor from the summer wore off, they opted to accelerate and go for a cloture vote on strict party lines in the same year. That succeeded on Dec 23, 2009 after making changes to get the last couple of Dems on board. The election of Scott Brown the following month ended the filibuster-proof majority.

Whatever makes you sleep at night dude. Apparently in your alternate reality the scorched earth opposition to Obama didn't start from day 1 of his presidency.

And of course proposing what is essentialy Romneycare wasn't bipartisan enough. Apparently the Democrats should have adopted the Republican alternative. There isn't one of course even today, 7 years later, but who cares?

No, I'm suggesting they should have stayed in the framework of Wyden-Bennett, kept the individual mandate and ditched the employer mandate in favor of true universal coverage. That was the bipartisan alternative when Obama took office.

[muon2]

To tie my point about Obamacare back to the thread, we need to keep in mind that just because an action at the state level is bipartisan, it doesn't mean that Congress will treat it as such. Congress has its own dynamics independent of the states. Obamacare may have been derived from Romneycare, but bipartisan groups in Congress had been working in other directions prior to the 2008 election. Any MA bipartisanship on that issue was not going to translate to DC. Similarly in 2014 MI passed a bipartisan effort to increase the minimum wage. That does not automatically mean a similar bill would be bipartisan in DC. It only becomes bipartisan if the sponsor has identified a bipartisan group in Congress that wants to work along those lines.

[muon2]

I have no problem paying a lot for strawberries in Feb, I'm often shocked how cheap fresh fruit is in the middle of the country in the middle of winter.  I wonder, "how the hell is anybody making any money off of 49 cents/lb bananas?".  Seems like they should cost a lot more.  I understand this is because the people picking my fruit are getting paid jacksquat.  I think they should be paid better wages and my fruits should cost more, which would happen if we actually cared about illegal immigration.

This is one of the most notable differences when grocery shopping compared to my 1960's childhood. We were quite constrained by the choice of fruits and veggies based on the time of year. Out of season food was out of our middle class price range. The year round availability of the same menu at roughly the same price, is something my kids enjoyed that I never did. I'm not sure the public would accept going back to the fresh choices from 50 years ago.