I'm just wondering why we seem so fixated on 15$. Have we considered if 9$, 12$ or any other value might be more optimal from a utilitarian perspective?
> The first option would raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour as of January 1, 2025. That increase would be implemented in six annual increments starting on January 1, 2020. After reaching $15 in 2025, the minimum wage would be indexed, or tied, to median hourly wages. The $15 option would also gradually eliminate exceptions to the minimum wage for tipped workers, teenage workers, and disabled workers.
> The second option would raise the federal minimum wage to $12 per hour as of January 1, 2025. The $12 option would be implemented on the same timeline as the $15 option but would not index the minimum wage to wage growth after 2025. It would leave in place current exceptions.
> The third option would raise the federal minimum wage to $10 per hour as of January 1, 2025. The $10 option would be implemented on the same timeline as the $15 and $12 options. Like the $12 option, it would not index the minimum wage to wage growth and would leave in place current exceptions.
In the Portland area, $15 is barely enough. Reasonable minimum target. This is true for various places along the I-5 corridor. Maybe Bend too.
In other regions, it may be $12, or even $11, depending.
Overall, it's reasonable and the expectation is increased demand will not impact the number of people having jobs much at all.
I agree with you. What should be done is a baseline study every few years. Take some basic metrics:
Housing
Food
Transportation
Health Care (overlooked now, but should not be, or we do universal care to keep it factored out)
Utilities, water, power, etc.
Roll all that up into a "just making it" index of some sorts and work from there.
My thoughts on this have arrived at a place where I do not see it being productive for labor to yield an income less than it actually does cost to exist and show up for work. When we do that, it's a subsidy, and we are all paying indirectly, and for some, very directly as those costs do accrue no matter what, and they get paid by someone no matter what, or people simply do not exist and or show up for work.
Often, the more direct payments fall on family and others close to the person unable to labor and meet basic needs. This gets expensive. Retirement, and other bigger picture things are impacted, and because we do not see those outcomes present right away, they too get ignored.
For all of us, taxes and such needed to fund services are indirect payments --subsidies essentially.
In some cases, a subsidy makes sense. Happy to do my part. However, in a general sense, I really do not want to be subsidizing businesses that could operate just fine and pay labor what it costs to exist and show up for work.
$15/hour * 40 hours/week * 50 weeks - (~$3000 in Federal Taxation) = $27,000
https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines
IMO, a minimum wage full-time employ shouldn't be a liveable wage for a teenager, it should be a liveable wage for almost everyone.