The ideal minimum wage of 2014

[eric82oslo]

So what would you consider to be the perfect level for the US minimum wage this year, in 2014?

[Dave from Michigan]

I say around 11 dollars an hour. What about the possiblity of inflation if it goes up too much if prices go up too much it is not much help for people.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

$15 and a union!

[Comrade Funk]

Do the people voting $25 or more understand what inflation is?

I'll say $9, but no more. Let the states handle it after that.

[DC Al Fine]

You didn't put anything lower than the current one? Lame

$0 and a guaranteed minimum income.

[H. Ross Peron]

As I said before somewhere in the 10-12 dollar wage with EITC, expanded social insurance programs, and possibly a minimum income.

[President Tyrion]

$0 and a minimum income

The minimum wage is just a proxy for a semblance of fairness. No "ideal" plan should include a blatant market inefficiency.

Really, I wouldn't be surprised if this became a more mainstream position in the future. It's a market solution that would have the potential to increase aid for the lowest classes.

The potential losses here are that service and menial jobs could see incredibly high wages with a high enough basic income, because not many people would want to flip burgers if they already have money coming in. With that said, I posit that the minimum income high enough for that is not really a realistic goal right now.

[Mordecai]

$10.10 just like the Senate proposal, but indexed to inflation.

[Mopsus]

I've recently warmed to the idea of replacing the minimum wage with a guaranteed minimum income, funded by higher taxes on the rich. Doing so would have the effect of fighting poverty without the market distortions that a minimum wage produces. The only thing to suffer under such a proposal would be people's work ethic.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

$8/hour nationally, with it being higher in states where the cost of living is higher.  Also I'd revoke the imposition of the national minimum wage upon American Samoa.  All that did was cause the tuna canneries, which had been the major employers, to close.  The American economy is diverse enough that a one size fits all minimum wage is absurd.

[Redalgo]

I am on the minimum income bandwagon when it comes to anti-poverty efforts.

Wage controls seem better suited for combating inequality, and could be applied to vary by business instead of making the dollar amount fixed and applicable to the whole country. At times I've recommended the minimum wage at a given firm should be at least a tenth of that received (their "wage" including non-monetary benefits) by the organization's most handsomely compensated worker(s), but I could still be persuaded to stray a bit from that arbitrary ratio.

Tyrion, in regards to service and menial work it might be important not to set the minimum income too high (i.e. I reckon most people would be dissatisfied with a level of income adequate to get by on but not high enough to support consumption of the sorts of luxury goods and services Americans are already generally accustomed to having). Wages and prices would shift around, sure. In the big picture though I seriously doubt the States would be worse place to live if people had to rearrange their spending habits and priorities a bit - even if it means fast food venues cease to be viable.

As an aside note, I share MOP's concern about work ethic to some extent and am curious about what kinds of effects such policy could have on human behavior. If some of the changes are detrimental, it would be important to explore options for improving the system's sustainability.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I do like the idea of a generous minimum income that provides basics for all people.  Let the earnings beyond that from work be "disposable" income.  I'd be willing to lower the minimum wage in exchange for that.  Allow businesses to pay $5/hour because maybe it's an art gallery and that's what they can afford to pay... but the workers love doing it.

That kind of a "free market" approach would be best.  Where nobody is wanting for food, shelter, etc.  but where work allows you to pursue your interests... work in exchange for money to spend in leisure.

[Adam Griffin]

$11/hour + $11/day guaranteed minimum income, indexed to inflation

(basically works out to be $13/hour for a full-time worker)

[eric82oslo]

$0 and a minimum income

The minimum wage is just a proxy for a semblance of fairness. No "ideal" plan should include a blatant market inefficiency.

Really, I wouldn't be surprised if this became a more mainstream position in the future. It's a market solution that would have the potential to increase aid for the lowest classes.

The potential losses here are that service and menial jobs could see incredibly high wages with a high enough basic income, because not many people would want to flip burgers if they already have money coming in. With that said, I posit that the minimum income high enough for that is not really a realistic goal right now.

If everyone would have a guaranteed minimum income then many people wouldn't feel an incentive to work right? Doesn't seem like the optimal market solution to me.

Every industrialized country has a minimum income btw. For a reason.

In Norway, the minimum wage depends on what kind of work you have. The very lowest paid occupation is that of farm workers. A 16 year old temporary farm worker is the lowest paid of all kinds of works in Norway. He or she would get an hourly salary of only $13.87. If this temporary farm worker was grown up, that is 18 or over, he or she would get at least $18.23 an hour. Now, if the farm worker was permanently employed, she would get $20.16 an hour. That's basically the absolute lowest minimum wage for a grown up permanent employee in Norway. If the farm worker was a cleaner instead, her minimum wage would have been $25.97.

[Ban my account ffs!]

$0 and a minimum income

The minimum wage is just a proxy for a semblance of fairness. No "ideal" plan should include a blatant market inefficiency.

Really, I wouldn't be surprised if this became a more mainstream position in the future. It's a market solution that would have the potential to increase aid for the lowest classes.

The potential losses here are that service and menial jobs could see incredibly high wages with a high enough basic income, because not many people would want to flip burgers if they already have money coming in. With that said, I posit that the minimum income high enough for that is not really a realistic goal right now.

If everyone would have a guaranteed minimum income then many people wouldn't feel an incentive to work right? Doesn't seem like the optimal market solution to me.

Every industrialized country has a minimum income btw. For a reason.

In Norway, the minimum wage depends on what kind of work you have. The very lowest paid occupation is that of farm workers. A 16 year old temporary farm worker is the lowest paid of all kinds of works in Norway. He or she would get an hourly salary of only $13.87. If this temporary farm worker was grown up, that is 18 or over, he or she would get at least $18.23 an hour. Now, if the farm worker was permanently employed, she would get $20.16 an hour. That's basically the absolute lowest minimum wage for a grown up permanent employee in Norway. If the farm worker was a cleaner instead, her minimum wage would have been $25.97.

I think the point is that a basic minimum income would provide you with the basics so if you didn't work, it wouldn't be a huge problem.

It might hurt low wage businesses, who would have a bigger incentive to automate... but it would create a whole other sector of low wage businesses that focus more on hobbies.

[muon2]

One difficulty with a national minimum wage is that the cost of living, and hence the effective poverty level, vary greatly across the US. Why force a minimum wage needed to survive above poverty in CT on IN (CoL in Indianapolis is about 75% that of Hartford). Ernest's post makes a good point about a national standard and then variations for more expensive states. Why not set a national standard based on the average CoL in the 10 least expensive states, and then let other states go from there?

$8/hour nationally, with it being higher in states where the cost of living is higher.  Also I'd revoke the imposition of the national minimum wage upon American Samoa.  All that did was cause the tuna canneries, which had been the major employers, to close.  The American economy is diverse enough that a one size fits all minimum wage is absurd.

[Torie]

The ideal number is zero. The safety net should be tied to the earned income tax credit, subsidized health insurance and housing, school and food stamps/vouchers - exclusively.

[Flake]

I would strongly support a system that has a national average salary of $11, going up with inflation (or down with deflation), and tied with the cost of living in the county where the worker lives.

[muon2]

The ideal number is zero. The safety net should be tied to the earned income tax credit, subsidized health insurance and housing, school and food stamps/vouchers - exclusively.

But what would stop a private business from offering employees $1 a day, noting that by working full time they will get all the paid benefits on your list? Wouldn't that just amount to the employer shifting their labor costs to the government and thus to the taxpayers?

[Dave from Michigan]

I support raising it to around 10 an hour. Does anyone think this would cause significant inflation though. Also the food stamp program should be increased but when I bring up food stamps in discussion most people seem to hate them and want them cut. They talk about lazy poor (black) people buying steaks and pop, ugh I have had a few of these discussions in just the last week.

[morgieb]

I'll go with the Senate Proposal, and also index it to inflation.

[Torie]

The ideal number is zero. The safety net should be tied to the earned income tax credit, subsidized health insurance and housing, school and food stamps/vouchers - exclusively.

But what would stop a private business from offering employees $1 a day, noting that by working full time they will get all the paid benefits on your list? Wouldn't that just amount to the employer shifting their labor costs to the government and thus to the taxpayers?

Good point, which I have thought about. My fix, is that FICA etc would be based on a minimum wage concept, so the employer pays a certain amount for that, even if the wage rate is otherwise too low per the formula. In the end, competition for labor will mitigate your concern, except to the extent employers then pay cash under the table. So the incentives have to be there not to encourage tax fraud. That is one way to do it. And the phase out of the benefits should start early, so the employee always gets a bit more net from a higher wage. In the end, if 99% of the workers, really do produce a value added in a given zone of at least say 5 bucks an hour, then sure, set the minimum wage at that. Then there is no real legitimate market for lower wages, other than for purposes of gaming the system. The perfect can be the enemy of the good.

[President Tyrion]

The ideal number is zero. The safety net should be tied to the earned income tax credit, subsidized health insurance and housing, school and food stamps/vouchers - exclusively.

But what would stop a private business from offering employees $1 a day, noting that by working full time they will get all the paid benefits on your list? Wouldn't that just amount to the employer shifting their labor costs to the government and thus to the taxpayers?

No one would work for $1 an hour with even a medium basic income. That's only $2000 a year in a 40 hour work week.

[politicallefty]

I went with $11/hour as an immediate solution, which is about the equivalent of its peak in 1968. At that point, it should be indexed to inflation.

[traininthedistance]

Ideally, no minimum wage but a generous universal basic income.

If we can't have that, from $10-$15, varying by metro area/non-metro parts of states, pegged to local cost of living (in particular, housing plus transportation).

If we can't have even that, and I had to choose one universal number for the country, somewhere between $11 or $12 (as politicallefty notes it was at its peak) and peg it to inflation.  (Voted $12 FWIW.)