I want a $16.35 minimum wage

[Recursion]

I think there's a certain charm to the idea: a single worker living alone working at that wage 40 hours a week will earn $34K, which places that person in the global 1%. I agree $15 is a nice round number, but I think explicitly crossing the $34K line as a target would be good.

[jfern]

1. The US median household income is $52k

Seeing as the US is 4.4% of the world population, there's no way $34k puts you in the top 1%.

[Recursion]

3. And yet it does.

A $52K two-person household has $26K per capita with no kids, and less with every kid they have.

[snot]

2. The Minimum Wage Shd Be tied to the Actual Necessities of Life

Not the dam' CPI, as continually re-defined by t.p.t.b.

E.g., food, shelter, healthcare. Which have all gone up WAY beyond any so-called CPI.

[Recursion]

4. The last time the CPI was redefined was the 1970s

I'm not sure what you're thinking of, but it isn't the CPI.

[snot]

5. All I know is, it's been redefined to exclude food

housing, and other necessities.

Pls source if you think otherwise.

[Recursion]

6. You're being lied to. About something very easy to look up.

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifaq.htm

Did you really never bother to just Google this?

What goods and services does the CPI cover?
The CPI represents all goods and services purchased for consumption by the reference population (U or W) BLS has classified all expenditure items into more than 200 categories, arranged into eight major groups. Major groups and examples of categories in each are as follows:
FOOD AND BEVERAGES (breakfast cereal, milk, coffee, chicken, wine, full service meals, snacks)
HOUSING (rent of primary residence, owners' equivalent rent, fuel oil, bedroom furniture)
APPAREL (men's shirts and sweaters, women's dresses, jewelry)
TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor vehicle insurance)
MEDICAL CARE (prescription drugs and medical supplies, physicians' services, eyeglasses and eye care, hospital services)
RECREATION (televisions, toys, pets and pet products, sports equipment, admissions);
EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION (college tuition, postage, telephone services, computer software and accessories);
OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES (tobacco and smoking products, haircuts and other personal services, funeral expenses).

Food and housing are included. Pretty much every consumer good and service is.

[Kalidurga]

7. That is reasonable

But, I don't think it puts a person in the US in the top 1% when you consider the purchasing power of the US dollar for US goods and services. The average cost of housing for example in other countries is not over 800 a month.

[Recursion]

8. $34K is by purchasing power parity, so it considers precisely that

Nominally the line is a good deal lower.

[DanTex]

9. Google confirms the $34K number, but it still seems low to me.

About 10% of the World Population lives in the US or Western Europe. The US is almost 5% alone. If $34K were the global 1%, that would mean that 90% of workers in the US and WEurope make less than $34K per year.

This means (more or less) that $34K puts you in the top 10% in the developed world. Seems a little low, doesn't it?

On edit: for example, if I type in $34K at this webpage it tells me that I'm at the 57th individual percentile in the US. That is based on Census data. If this is accurate, then $34K can't be the global 1%, because the 43% of Americans already constitute more than 1% of the world's population.
http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2014/09/what-is-your-income-percentile-ranking.html#.VvZ_DXUrK5M

If I'm right that the global 1% is about the top 10% in the developed world, then I'd guess that you need something like $80K to be part of that, maybe more. The census data says that $90K puts you in the top 10% of individual Americans.

[Recursion]

11. It's per capita household income, which can be misleading

If a one-person household earns $34K, that person is in the global 1%. A single parent with one child earning $34K is at $17K per capita income, down at about the global 10% or 11% mark. Only about a quarter of US households are one person, but in general our households are significantly smaller than those in the developing world (which increases our per capita household income relative to them). This is one case where the measure that's relevant globally isn't terribly relevant in the developed world because basically nobody has more than 2 or 3 kids anymore.

You could also look at it another way; the global labor force is just north of 3 billion people, of which 160 million, or 5% or so, are in the US. Just mathematically we can't get entire labor force into the 1% of the global labor force, but we could tighten up our distribution from the top 15% to the top 10% or so.

[DanTex]

15. Aha. I see.

So the $34K is the 99th percentile among all households in the world of the total household income divided among the number of members. And it makes sense that 99th percentile of individual income, that is, the 99th percentile among all workers of the amount they earn, is going to be higher than that. E.g. a 4-person household with one worker earning $100K would show up as one entry of $25K in the first dataset and one entry of $100K in the second. Makes sense.

So for a 4-person household, $136K would put you in the global 1%. That's a reasonable number.

You could also look at it another way; the global labor force is just north of 3 billion people, of which 160 million, or 5% or so, are in the US. Just mathematically we can't get entire labor force into the 1% of the global labor force, but we could tighten up our distribution from the top 15% to the top 10% or so.

Yeah, this is what I was getting at.

[Recursion]

25. Quick point: it's the 99th percentile, not the median

Your explanation goes on to clarify that; just wanted any lurkers to not be confused.

[DanTex]

30. Yup, thanks, fixed it.

[DCBob]

10. Totally agree.

$15 / hr is still way too low.

[Recursion]

26. $25 would be in line with the 1960s

Though as I say downthread I'm much more interested in a universal income than a minimum wage.

[libtodeath]

12. We need a mandated minimum income for all.

[Recursion]

13. I like that idea better

But I doubt I'll live to see it.

I even have a pretty good way to do it: generate a social dividend by having "the people" be default shareholders of, say, 2% of every business. The government receives the dividends and capital gains for that 2% and distributes it as a social dividend to the population.

[libtodeath]

16. Or a sliding tax scale on companies depending on what level of public resources they use.

[forjusticethunders]

17. The first thing I thought when I saw this is

"This is pretty much a gateway to a fully socialist economy".

You'd still have markets, and you could even in theory still have profits. But by making "the people" default shareholders, the idea becomes entrenched and normalized. 2% could be 20%...or it could be 90%.

[Recursion]

22. Exactly. Start it at 2%. See if people like it

Eventually you can start buying out current shareholders.

[Armstead]

19. I actually like that idea...It'd never fly but I think it would be eminently reasonable

[Tarc]

14. I'd rather us work on making common goods and services be more affordable

[RiverLover]

18. Third Way wants $10/hour for most of the country. That's what will be if Hillary is our president.

or $12 in places like SF or NYC.

She'll say its the best she could do with congressional republicans. (Clinton triangulation, Part II)

When all the time Third Way Dems are republicans themselves.

http://www.thirdway.org/report/ready-for-the-new-economy

[djean111]

28. Yes. You are correct.

[StevieM]

49. I have a hard time seeing congressional Republicans agreeing to any minimum was increase.

I don't see the issue as being about Clinton vs. Sanders.

It's about electing a Democratic Congress.

[99Forever]

20. "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. The same nationwide?

Or should the minimum wage be higher in places with higher costs of living?

[Recursion]

23. I'm an adamant "yes" on that, though I understand the argument against

To protect all workers it has to be identical nationwide.

[mythology]

45. Except making it standardized does the exact opposite

If you think otherwise, try living on 34k in Boston, New York or San Francisco and then try it in rural Alabama or Indiana. Nothing against those places, but your money goes a hell of a lot further there. Income is context dependent.

It would disadvantage workers in large urban areas to have the same minimum wage, and to do so for what is a pretty random standard. What happens as other parts of the world get wealthier? Do we have some inherent right to have a higher standard of living?

[Kang Colby]

24. I want a pony, but that's not going to happen.

My advice to someone who feels entitled to a $16.35 wage rate is to develop the requisite marketable skills that demand such a rate within the marketplace.

[Trust Buster]

27. Agreed.

[BillZBubb]

31. So what should be the minimum wage for those without the requisite skills?

What is your Hillary, Third Way, no free stuff position on that?

[Trust Buster]

32. I support an increase in the minimum wage but at a realistic target figure.

$16.35 in New York's economy is one thing. $16.35 in Alabama's economy is quite another. A one size fits all minimum wage must be a realistic number that all diverse economies in our country can absorb without a small business calamity. In addition, the votes are just not there for a $16.35 target even if I agreed with that target.

[BillZBubb]

34. It doesn't matter whether the votes are there. That's a different issue. What should be the number?

You agreed with the poster on requiring "requisite skills". So, I ask you again for the US minimum wage what should be the number for those WITHOUT the "requisite skills"? Try not to emulate Hillary by evading the question.

[Trust Buster]

38. I answered your question. It should be raised to a rate that reflects all diverse economies

in the country. $16.35 is too high IMO. And yes, it does matter if the votes are there to pass a minimum wage hike or we're just wasting our breath.

[BillZBubb]

40. Baloney, to win in politics you set an objective and fight for it. That's how you get the votes.

This defeatist "we don't have the votes" nonsense is the road to getting nothing done--or worse regressing.

Thank goodness the Abolitionists weren't led by Hillary and her followers. They would have given up before they even started.

[Trust Buster]

42. Well, let's see if your baloney passes through Congress.....LOL

[BillZBubb]

43. That's what the conservatives like you said to the Abolitionists.

[Trust Buster]

44. We're not expecting a Civil War. What a silly analogy.

[BillZBubb]

47. It's a perfect analogy. The Abolitionists dreamt big and fought for years against the defeatists.

They eventually prevailed.

[Trust Buster]

48. 600,000 deaths later. I think you need to read the history.

[Kang Colby]

50. In 1950 minimum wage was .75 per hour...which is

$7.38 in inflation adjusted 2016 dollars. When did people get the idea that minimum wage was meant to be a cash cow? A lot of small businesses just can't increase labor rates by 100%.

[BillZBubb]

29. So what should be the mandated minimum wage? Anything?

Or should people just be scolded into developing the requisite marketable skills to get something at all?

I'd like to hear the Third Way contribution.

[Trust Buster]

33. Why don't you knock it off with this Third Way nonsense ?

I never even heard of the Third Way until I came on this site. I'm an independent thinker as our most posters.

[BillZBubb]

37. If you support Hillary, you support the Third Way conservative wing of the party.

The fact that you never heard of the Third Way shows your lack of information about how the party is fragmented.

Of course, to you it may be nonsense. But to millions of poor Americans it is deadly serious business.

[My Good Babushka]

35. All jobs require skills

it's just that we've been talked into devaluing the skills of a large segment of the workforce for a very long time.

[Newkularblue]

41. And i

Would much rather pay a little more for goods and services vs using public funds for food stamps, subsidized housing, state subsidized health care, daycare assistance, energy assistance, education grants, 'free' clinics, etc etc etc

Do you believe:

a) theres only dignity in work if you think skill x is worthy

b) that you arent already paying a much higher minimum wage because of the above subsidies (you know, MATH) and

c) a full time job shouldnt automatically support a human being plus a child or two

Just a slightly less cruel version of 'murcan' exceptionalism (the boot strap bullshit) in my opinion. Or, complete disregard for the fact that 'free market' capitalism makes no allowances for misery. I sure dont remember a misery coefficient in either Keyenes or Friedmans standard models but its been a while.

[restorefreedom]

36. its a good start

it puts a single person at 300% of the poverty level for 2016. of course, if it is combined with SP health care, those dollars will go a lot farther.

i would like to see the global standards improve to the point where there is not really much of a 1% anymore (because after a certain level of income, they will have the living shit taxed off that income) but even this would be a uuuge victory.

[corbettkroehler]

39. Love Your Math! When Sanders Is Nominated

let's push a petition drive encouraging him to make it a campaign goal.

[Starry Messenger]

46. In my city, you need a lot more per hour to afford an apartment.

We have a $15 hr. measure going on the ballot, which will no doubt pass, but honestly it should be more.