HOUSE BILL: The Dfwlibertylover Minimum Wage Act of 2017 (Tabled)

[NeverAgain]

Going to repost this here:

Okay, so currently, as I see it, both Fremont and Lincoln have passed $15 Minimum Wages, Fremont's occuring over an elongated time, and Lincoln's being EXTREMELY similar to yours, seen here, leave the South to be the only one without a raised wage. Now, the South's Minimum Wage is a separate issue, but this bill will only affect my region (save for some reactionaries taking over the other two regions). My worry here is that we will have a large wage gap, not for gender, but for address. For this reason, I second the worries of Blair above, as where you live and work shouldn't be a determinant for poverty.

As someone who lives right next to one of the largest COL locations in the world, AND one of the locations with the largest homelessness population due to the former, this issue is one that affects many round here. As stated before, population is not the problem, cost of living is. There are many places that have under 100,000 people, but their cost of living expenses are similar to that of much more expensive urban areas that have a $14.00 wage, rather than their $12.00 one.

My plan for the South, which I will mention again is the only region to actually be affected by this legislation, will have an indexed wage starting at $11.50 which will rise based on Cost of Living points, with a $15 max at a certain point. Like for example, 5 cents raise for every COL point rise.

The problem with population is it is so subjective, cost wise. I will post this in the debate thread, but I think these wage problems need to be addressed, and specify that it is for job, not place of residence.

[NeverAgain]

Going to repost this here:

Okay, so currently, as I see it, both Fremont and Lincoln have passed $15 Minimum Wages, Fremont's occuring over an elongated time, and Lincoln's being EXTREMELY similar to yours, seen here, leave the South to be the only one without a raised wage. Now, the South's Minimum Wage is a separate issue, but this bill will only affect my region (save for some reactionaries taking over the other two regions). My worry here is that we will have a large wage gap, not for gender, but for address. For this reason, I second the worries of Blair above, as where you live and work shouldn't be a determinant for poverty.

As someone who lives right next to one of the largest COL locations in the world, AND one of the locations with the largest homelessness population due to the former, this issue is one that affects many round here. As stated before, population is not the problem, cost of living is. There are many places that have under 100,000 people, but their cost of living expenses are similar to that of much more expensive urban areas that have a $14.00 wage, rather than their $12.00 one.

My plan for the South, which I will mention again is the only region to actually be affected by this legislation, will have an indexed wage starting at $11.50 which will rise based on Cost of Living points, with a $15 max at a certain point. Like for example, 5 cents raise for every COL point rise.

The problem with population is it is so subjective, cost wise. I will post this in the debate thread, but I think these wage problems need to be addressed, and specify that it is for job, not place of residence.

I am open to a COL amendment but I'd prefer not to go as high as 15, if we are going to go as high as 15 in some areas then I will put the lowest areas at 8$.

I don't understand this logic? If we allow a living wage for those in urban areas, but destroy the ability to allow all to make their own livelihoods in lower COL areas, by LOWERING the minimum wage.