We are worth MORE

[Playinghardball]

$10.10 is a totally inadequate level for the minimum wage...IMO

[Laelth]

1. $15.00/hr. puts us on par with 1962 wages.

That's what we need.

-Laelth

[Scuba]

3. $22 to keep up with productivity.

Elizabeth Warren: Minimum Wage Would Be $22 An Hour If It Had Kept Up With Productivity

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/elizabeth-warren-minimum-wage_n_2900984.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

[Laelth]

6. And she's right, as usual.

Thanks for the link.

-Laelth

[Chan790]

8. I'd be willing to take $10 and change if it were indexed to inflation...

it's less than productivity gains but it means an permanent end to the 1% putting that productivity gain in their pocket while the labor fall further behind. Any future voted raise above {the indexed minimum} remaining indexed is the key part.

Frankly, the number isn't that important to me (beyond a certain point) compared to indexing it by statute to inflation or GDP growth so that it at least automatically keeps up with the growth of the economy.

I'd take $10.10 and indexed growth over $22 without indexed growth easily.

[handmade34]

4. ...

[zeemike]

7. And that is not really true ether.

In 1962 one worker working 40 hours a week could support a family...and I don't think one worker could on 15 bucks an hour considering the price of things today...unless they owned their own home with no mortgage.

[blkmusclmachine]

2. The GOP would have you barter with other job seekers for wages starting at $1 per hour + NO benefits

[Scuba]

5. Nah, they'll settle for nothing less than slavery. Oh, wait ....

MINIMUM-WAGE WORKERS ARE CHEAPER THAN SLAVES

A minimum-wage worker, at today's rates, costs an employer about $320.00 for a 40-hour week.

The cost of a slave, if slavery were legal in the U.S. as it is in some parts of the world, would be much higher - over $500.00!

Taking into account the initial purchase price, along with housing, food, health care, clothing, miscellaneous expenses, and around-the-clock guards, a slave could easily cost twice as much as a minimum-wage worker at today's rate.

Does a country lose its anti-slavery cred when it allows companies to spend less on a worker than it would have to spend for a slave?

[AZ Progressive]

9. Corporations don't care when they can outsource jobs and get prisoners to work for pennies an hour

They don't give a damn shit about the American economy since they aren't dependent on it anymore.

[abelenkpe]

13. Five workers in India cost the same as one US worker

which is why much of my industry has been outsourced over the last eight years. Between tax incentives, subsidies, the cost of health care for US workers and differences in currency valuation US workers don't stand a chance. If a job can be outsourced and hasn't been already, it's probably just a matter of time.

[liberal_at_heart]

10. Sanders speaks for the people, not the corporations. That is the kind of leadership we need.

[Billsmile]

11. Idea of Basic Rights Need to be Expanded to Include Economic Rights

Economic rights need to be the new Civil Rights. The way money works in this society is a matter of prejudice where those who have have all the advantages. This is unfair.

[Stellar]

12. I remember my husband was earning

like $16.00 an hour in 1969 in construction field. We were so proud to be making that much money. I was earning like $4.15hr on a pbx switchboard job. My husband tried his best to get me to quit my job, saying I didn't need to be working for that chump change, but nooo. My money was my money and I didn't have to beg him for any and explain what I needed it for. I felt independent, and we were happy.


Those were the days!!!!!!!