Upon inception it was set at $0.25. It is now $7.25.

  • trailing9@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Do you remember that wages rose when unemployment was low?

    Why is there a need for minimum wage?

    Edit: downvoters, what do you want? A high minimum wage job while many are unemployed? Why focus on minimum wage when you can have low unemployment and decent wages for everybody at the same time by reducing unemployment?

          • trailing9@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            This sounds reasonable. Too bad that the post lost focus. I would love to know what others think about this.

          • trailing9@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Because I am not convinced by their arguments. It makes sense if you accept a minimum of unemployed people. But why should society settle for that? Employ everybody and find another way to prevent wages from rising too high.

            • idiomaddict@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              But the workers don’t currently have either- lowering or removing the minimum wage might reduce the unemployment rate, but those jobs are not going to be paid at a livable rate. Currently more theft is wage theft committed by companies against workers, they’re already using the power they have against workers. There’s already a clear divide between union and nonunion blue collar benefits and wages: if there were a textbook play of economic principles, all nonunion blue collar employees would quit and join union companies or form their own.

              • trailing9@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Having neither, it’s the same as the saying about liberty and security. If you don’t seek employment for all then you won’t get minimum wage.

                Let the people decide what a livable wage is. A bad job is better than no job. They can still refuse to work.

                Of course, without new ideas, things don’t change. Not the workers but the companies need a reason for full employment.

                • idiomaddict@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Let the people decide what a livable wage is. A bad job is better than no job. They can still refuse to work.

                  The people have a gun to their head. If they’re not eligible for unemployment because a $3/hour job is available, they’ll take it not to starve to death. That doesn’t make it a free or advantageous choice.

                  • trailing9@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Of course, if there is only support if you don’t have a job then minimum wage makes sense.

                    But that support comes from taxes. I would prefer a society where everybody works so that taxes are low. Of course there must still be something that gives people the freedom to say no.

    • medgremlin@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      The unemployment rate does not take into consideration people who are under-employed or people who are working multiple jobs to get by. You could be working 3 part time jobs (none of which offer benefits) and still not make enough money to pay your bills. The “unemployment rate” is a load of bullshit and should largely be discarded in favor of tracking how many people are living above the poverty line.

      • trailing9@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Right. This is important to remember. I think my question is still valid because it’s about the real rate and not the published figure.

        • medgremlin@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Except that the published figure is what gets used in policy and calculations. The real rate is largely ignored and the numbers are heavily skewed by ever-changing definitions and parameters making the “unemployment rate” a nearly useless metric. We need to run our country based on keeping people out of functional poverty, not based on keeping profits up.

          • trailing9@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Policy and calculations don’t matter if there is low unemployment. It’s minimum wage that’s gamed. Why fight that lost battle?

            • medgremlin@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m saying that the unemployment rate is artificially low as well as being a stupid metric to use, but unfortunately, it’s the metric that powerful entities use to make decisions about manipulating the economy at large.

              • trailing9@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                There is the published figure and there is the actual number of unemployed people.

                You rightfully point out that the figure is manipulated. I am talking about the actually unemployed people.

    • sebinspace@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because an employer paying minimum wage is their way of saying “I’d pay you less if it were legal”, because your employer’s interests are in direct competition with your own. A store manager is not only in direct competition with the store across the street, he is also in competition with his own employees. It is in his interest to ensure he maximizes his own profits, but it is in your interest to make as much money as you can aswell.

      • trailing9@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The focus should be on "Id pay you less but then you would quit”. Everything else is a weak position.

        If there is no competition among stores, workers compete among each other. Though nobody complains because it’s the weakest humans who won’t find a minimum wage job. When there is a choice for the manager, they will pick the better worker.

        Is it still a good deal for minimum wage workers? What should workers do with abusive managers? With minimum wage, there is no option to be willing to work for less but with better conditions.

    • Dude123@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      If worker unions were required by law then I would agree. The issue is that companies will corner the job market to suppress wages. The government applies some pressure the opposite way via minimum wages to help force progress. Self checkouts and various other automated processes don’t occur without some kind of selection pressure.

      Think of minimum wages as forcing weaker companies out of the market.

      • trailing9@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        How do companies corner the job market?

        Doesn’t minimum wage support the cornering because new competitors cannot start with lower wages?

    • notfromhere@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Unemployment is currently the lowest it’s been. Lowest in over 30 years, crazy. Maybe rates will come up, hopefully the union strikes will help. Low unemployment has to help with that.