2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumLet's Talk About the Issues - Living Wage
Millions of American employees have been working 50 or 60 hours a week while receiving no overtime pay. That is why Bernie has been encouraging the Obama Administration to ensure that more workers receive overtime pay protection. The Administrations new rule extending that protection to everyone making less than $947 a week is a step in the right direction. It is a win for our economy and for our workers.
Proposed a national $15 per hour minimum wage.
Led the effort to increase the minimum wage for federal contract workers to $10.10 an hour.
Introduced the Workplace Democracy Act to strengthen the role of unions and the voices of working people on the job.
As mayor of Burlington, was a strong collaborator with unions.
Leading the fight in the Senate for a $15 an hour minimum wage and a union for fast food workers, and federal contract workers.
The current Democratic Administration has done very little to help unions in this country and done very little to help establish a living minimum wage. My concern is that H. Clinton is more conservative than Pres Obama and will also look the other way as corporations get their way, killing unions and holding down wages.
Senator Sanders will work hard for the working class. His campaign is supported by working class dollars and not corporation dollars.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/a-living-wage/
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)If we're getting into economic concepts such as a "living wage", it seems to me there needs to be some recognition of what is actually a living wage in a particular region. A living wage in NYC or San Francisco is very different than a living wage in Peoria (just using a random smaller town, I dont know its cost of living).
Shouldn't a living wage be indexed to the local economy? If not, it's just an empty label, not a reality people can actually live with.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Cost of living varies widely across the nation.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Yes certain costs, are local -- but in an economy where so much is corporatized and movement is more fluid, location makes less difference than it once did.
For example, I live in an area where local jobs pay less, and tere are fewer of them than in some ares. But our housing and otehr costs are driven by the presence of affluent "city folk" who vacation or have second homes.
The effects of gentrification are spreading to many ares that once might have ben insulatd from the upward pressure on living costs.
Perhaps state levels can help, but we need a "floor: that can truly allow working people to stay afloat amid rising cots.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Maybe I'm not understanding, or maybe it's so far from what I think that I think I'm not getting it. Think you could live on $15 / hour in San Francisco as well as you could in low cost of living areas? The lower income people shouldn't be required to move to survive. Sorry I missed your point, you're welcome to explain if you like.
The one argument I could see against it is it could build in inflation to the system, or hurt businesses (labor costs go up but their profit margin doesn't), but I'd rather err on that side than on the side of labor rates that are too ow to afford housing in an area.
Uncle Joe
(58,282 posts)Thanks for the thread, rhett o rick.