What a goofy thing to think. Effective minimum wage(that is, min. wage adjusted for inflation) has been slowly declining for decades. Minimum wage isn't getting higher, it's getting slowly lower.
This is simply not true.
Minimum wage was introduced in 1938, and was for a whopping $0.25 per hour. This is about $4.22 per hour in 2016 dollars. Federal minimum wage is currently at $7.25. Some states have even higher minimum wages, with California coming in at $10.00 (soon to coast up to $15.00 per hour in the next few years).
So no, the purchasing power of minimum wage is not getting lower, quite the opposite.
PS: In fact you need to go back to 1949 to find a worse year than 2006.
Minimum wage was intended as a baseline for unskilled entry-level jobs. Our issue today is we have a tremendous amount of folks, more than ever imagined, attempting to survive on minimum wage.
The solution is staunchly not to just give folks more money; we've been trying that for 78 years and we still have the same problem.
The solution is to enable people to support themselves off and above a minimum wage. We do this by empowering folks to get higher education and/or highly skilled job training.
We should not have 50+ year olds working the cash register at Walmart. That's a failure of society... and we're not working on solving that problem. Instead, we just want an easy out; toss cash at them so we don't have to think about this for another couple of years, never-mind that same 50 year old is still working the cash register at Walmart! That's a flat cop-out.
As to trying things for 78 years we have very different problems now vs 78 years ago. To pretend otherwise is to simply act the fool.
There are many popular ideas that simply don't work. Pretending everyone is a healthy, intelligent, well educated, and they can just make everything better by working harder is one of them. People have been working harder, productivity keeps growing but for a huge chunk of the population things have been getting worse over time. And that my friend is a very dangerous trend.
Handing people more money for nothing does not solve their problems in the long term. If anything, 78 years of minimum wage has definitively proven this.
When inflation goes up, as it does, they'll all be right where they are today. Why solve today what you can solve tomorrow? Now, that's truly sick.
> we have very different problems now vs 78 years ago
We don't have different problems. Minimum wage was implemented to help prevent folks from working all day only to not be capable of affording life... this is exactly what we're debating today. So, 78 years later, we still haven't solved this issue...
> People have been working harder
Have they? Working harder today is a different notion than working harder in 1938. Today, we require education and highly skilled workers. Yet, we have a major shortage of exactly that. Why is this? Well, many reasons, but among them is our societal indifference to encouraging or mandating folks get high skilled training or a higher education. There's a big push today exactly against folks getting education and/or high skilled training, and you seem to be arguing this as well.
More money is a short term solution. It doesn't solve anything long term. It hasn't worked for 78 years, and it won't work for another 78 years. To use your words... "To pretend otherwise is to simply act the fool".
Second you completely ignored millions of people who can't be significantly educated or handle significant responsibility, but can hold down low skill repetitive jobs.
Put down your blinders and try looking at the real world.
You seem to, at the core of your argument, have little faith in people's capabilities.
> Put down your blinders and try looking at the real world
I've done just that. We have an evolving economy, and we need to put things in place to enable a successful transition. Handing people money for nothing is not part of a successful transition; it only postpones the proper solution. That's wrong.
2.2% of the US population has an IQ below 70.
8.9% of the US population has an IQ below 80.
IQ is a horrible indicator, and while influenced by genes, it is also biased by a number of factors, including upbringing environment.
As the son of a teacher, I refuse to accept the notion that our "dumbest" folks aren't capable of learning great things. It's attitudes like the one you're presenting that keep these folks down in the dirt. "They just aren't capable of complicated things!"... what hogwash. Even a person with diagnosed learning disabilities can accomplish great tasks given the proper guidance and training. You would have us just give up on them!
The devil in me questions the point of life if you just sit around and exist... nothing more.
I think we need to agree to disagree here.
I am also a son of a teacher, but that's very different than an actual teacher. I can't picture using that to try and argue from authority. Especially when the lowest end of the scale is segregated from everyone else.
Though, I guess wallowing in your ignorance is par for the course.
I don't know why you choose to be so hostile? It's a bit condescending, and your position is not any more correct than I.
> Even the Army has long held minimum standards for mental capabilities. This is backed up by a lot of research
And the same was said about women serving in combat roles... until recently.
I also happen to come from a military family, and can attest to the bar being very, very low regarding mental capabilities. I grew up around these folks. It's actually who the military seeks for low rank positions - not independent thinkers, they want compliance without question. You don't get that with highly educated individuals. I know this is anecdotal, but it does have value.
Change your outlook, because it's awful. Having zero faith in people's abilities to rise to meet new challenges is odd, to say the least. You seem content to keep people poor, dumb, and useless. A new economy requires higher level of skills and thought. The time to start brewing that ecosystem is now, not later.
A friend's child is sufficiently handicapped that at 20 he is incapable of speech more complex than grunting. He is still capable of relativly simple tasks. But to asume there is a binary choice where every person is either totally disabled or capable of becoming a fortune 500 CEO if they just worked harder is both idiotic and common.
There are many people with hopes and dreams who are worthy of respect, but simply can't function at a high level. Increasingly we simply throw them to the wolves as even if they can hold down a simple job that's not enough for rent, which starts a cycle of homelessness and often prison.
A living wage is about human decency even for those who have trouble with tasks more complex than mopping a floor.
This is a laughably absurd statement. Majority of enlistees are there exactly because they are not high achievers... A major benefit of the military is the opportunities it provides. They hammer into you responsibility, education, and highly skilled training. Even the lowest performers learn very complex tasks, making the military a fantastic example of what I'm advocating. Perhaps we need programs like this for the general public.
> A friend's child is sufficiently handicapped that at 20 he is incapable of speech more complex than grunting
I feel for your friend, as this is truly an awful thing to have to deal with. However, this is a false dichotomous claim. This scenario does not apply to any majority of folks in this country (or the world), and you're transforming this into a black and white scenario. In addition, certain types of ailments will permanently necessitate assisted living, even in adulthood, which makes your anecdote even less relevant to this discussion.
> is a binary choice where every person is either totally disabled or capable of becoming a fortune 500 CEO if they just worked harder is both idiotic and common
Of course it's not a binary choice. I never asserted as such. What I have asserted is, the future of the economy will depend on highly skilled and/or highly educated workers. The idea of the "working class" must shift - otherwise there's no purpose for them... and an economy cannot function with 50-80% of it's workforce only consuming via funds not earned nor supported (via taxes, because taxing a BI is sort of a ridiculous idea) by them.
> A living wage is about human decency
No it's not. It's about making folks as yourself feel good temporarily. A living wage is never enough. Why not make minimum wage $30 per hour today? It surely would postpone other necessary measures for longer! Inevitably though, we'll have to re-address this issue in a few years time, as we have been doing for 78 years. We have got to figure out a better solution, because the one we have right now is simply not cutting it. Even you agree to this, surely.
So no, I won't accept your defeatist attitude. Give up on the poor and stupid because they'll never amount to anything. Don't bother increasing education and training, because they'll never be capable of anything more than mopping floors. Just give them money and don't think about their problems for a couple of years.
What absurdity.
With this said, we really should end this. You will never agree with me, and I the same with you.
This is clearly cold comfort to people who went homeless despite multiple full time jobs.
Minimum wage can be tagged to inflation just like Social Security and like all laws it can be changed in a few weeks. Your projecting a future that does not currently exist and many never exist and ignoring millions that are at the border right now.
Small business make up 99.7% of all companies in the US, and account for 65% of all jobs created since 1995. [1][2][3][4]. But that's not to say big businesses aren't impacted by this.
The more expensive you make human labor, the more of these unskilled and low education jobs disappear (McDonald's automated kiosks, for example). Small businesses just can't afford to employ as many people, and big businesses turn to increased automation... which is the exact problem you're describing.
This seems to pivot your point to suggesting a BI. If so, then you'll need to adopt the plan I've been advocating this entire time - increased (and/or mandatory) higher education and/or highly skilled training. Otherwise BI falls apart as it won't be a self sustaining economy. Federal revenue is paid for by the workforce in majority (payroll tax + income tax equal about 80% of federal revenue[5]). If the workforce shrinks (and it doesn't make logical sense to tax a BI), then we have a problem.
The plan I've advocated can be adopted and be successful with or without a BI economy. I don't see a better plan coming from you, however.
[1] http://www.inc.com/jared-hecht/are-small-businesses-really-t...
[2] http://sbecouncil.org/about-us/facts-and-data/
[3] https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf
[4] http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonnazar/2013/09/09/16-surpris...
[5] http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-federal-...