the min wage is long overdue, its should be somewhere near $25/hr
this is how you 'tax' billionaires
California tried this with a $20/hr minimum wage in fast food restaurants: the next time you go into a McDonalds, count the number of empty cash registers and number of shiny new ordering kiosks: https://www.nber.org/papers/w34033
And what's the point of a minimum wage of it doesn't provide a living? That's just letting private enterprise piggyback off the welfare system.
Not a family. Especially not families with - for other reasons- only one breadwinner.
The problems of poverty (to the extent the US even experiences it) are broader than demanding someone make uneconomic decisions with their investors capital.
This is false and not at all the reason why the minimum wage exists. It was created to bust sweatshops. You are making the same argument as the people that were defending sweatshops. It may be the argument proponents make now to argue against raising it, but it was not why it was created. Roosevelt literally said that the intent was that any business unable to provide a basic living wage for their workers was one that should not exist.
I agree with Roosevelt that businesses should provide a living wage for their workers. Mine does.
I'm happy to have both: "minimum single-income with extended-family obligations wage" and "young, single individual minimum wage".
You just won't find a lot of the former.
(The reality is we pretend we don’t have that, then rebuild it badly with bandaids - child tax credit, earned income tax credit, daycare credits, MFJ deductions, healthcare, etc).
I know several people supporting families on minimum wage.
Do they not deserve to be paid more?
Ordering kiosks mean we can meet volume because more time is spent in production. Same with mobile ordering.
The employee count doesn't need to change up or down.
Employment is not a means in itself, the point of being employed is to "make a living". If a job cannot sustain a person then it should not exist.
People deserve to live with dignity, earning a living wage.
Look, I get where that is coming from. But no one deserves anything, even clean air. Instead, you pay for things with other things (e.g. clean air in exhchange for slightly more expensive cars).
A (shitty) job is better than no job. Minimum wage should be lowered. You gotta help people with something else. For instance by allowing to build higher density housing.
869k workers. The size of a country larger than Luxembourg.
Yes.
> Clearly it's nearly impossible except in limited circumstance
No, you exaggerate. It’s a large number of people. I wouldn’t say it’s nearly impossible to find someone from Indianapolis (pop. 879k, 2024 est.), and the number of Americans is much larger than the number of working Americans.
It's 1.1%, an incredibly small portion of the entire working population. There's never any follow up like "where in the country does this occur?" which may reveal that it's actually a livable wage. Or other follow up questions like, "does this number include illegal aliens who are happy with being paid $7.25/hour tax free?"
You're also ignoring _how_ it came to be that 98.9% of all workers manage to get paid higher than the minimum wage without it being mandated. Are the companies doing this out of the goodness of their hearts or have market forces instead found what the _actual_ viable minimum wage for various localities truly is?
Are you serious?
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2023/
Table 3. Their methodology is addressed in the technical notes.
> You're also ignoring _how_ it came to be. . .
No. You asked a specific question and I was bored enough to help you look up a result. I’m not here to engage with whatever ideological problems you have going on in the subtext.
"Raising the federal minimum wage to $15 by 2025 would lift wages for over 33 million workers": https://www.epi.org/publication/minimum-wage-15-by-2025/
(For the record, 33 million is ~6 million more than the population of Australia)
Pretty sure the data of the past few years has shown we don’t really need a minimum wage apart from ensuring people aren’t absolutely taken advantage of. Nobody is paying just minimum wage anymore, apart from servers and the like that make most of their income from tips. The local McDonalds pays at least 50% more, for instance.
For example, in the USSR, the price of bread was fixed by the state. But the real price of bread was how long you were willing to wait in line for it.
BTW, in the US, you are free to set up a company and then pay your workers whatever you want to. Workers can choose to work for you, or not.
Labor rights have been a raging success. 40 hour work weeks, minimum wage, sick leave, vacation leave (in non-shithole countries).
>BTW, in the US, you are free to set up a company and then pay your workers whatever you want to.
What happens when competition with deeper pockets price dumps you into oblivion? Free market is a free market only when there is competition based on the product, not how rich your investors are.
There is evidence the workers are being exploited everywhere if you bother to spend a second looking. Like the parent said, your apologism of capitalists is disgusting.
so much success that now you need two working adults to support a family of 4 while 60 years ago a working man could support a much larger family with a single income.
Funny you should ask. There was a famous case from the beginning of the last century where German bromide producers price-dumped it the U.S. in an effort to undermine Dow's efforts in the same direction. The result? They failed miserably.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Chemical_Company
> your apologism of capitalists is disgusting
Free market capitalism is the only system proven to work, over and over again. It brought billions out of poverty and it still does to this very day, when allowed to work, of course.
If you find that disgusting - I am guessing you are a big fan of poverty. I would prefer a world in which everyone is rather rich (or at least well off), a world that no system other than capitalism is even close to providing.
How come nobody practices it, then? In fact, right now the world's biggest economy is doubling down on trade restrictions.
Under capitalism, the rich are forbidden to rob the poor. Most elites are very unhappy with such ban.
But the tariffs are an interesting experiment, with some non-economical geopolitical goals thrown in, so we'll see how it goes.
Not as it is usually defined. Many places take inspiration from free market capitalism, like Javascript takes inspiration from C, but have developed their own systems. The US model is usually referred to as mixed-market capitalism and the EU model is generally thought of as a social market economy.
Of course, that's just semantics. While there is value in using shared terminology, you can make up any definition you want on the spot. You could call the old Soviet system "free market capitalism" if you really want to. The world is your oyster.
Name a country that in 2025 practices free market capitalism.
> If you find that disgusting - I am guessing you are a big fan of poverty.
An aggressively rude misreading of the GP.
The more free market ones are noticeably more prosperous.
Capitalism? Yes.
"Free market capitalism"? No.
While regulated capitalism is very effective at aligning everyone's interests, a free market operates without the intervention of government or any other external authority, and rapidly decays into a market for lemons[0] — or worse, arbitrarily negative contractual obligations, which is how serfdom functioned.
Even when the governments start off by only intervening to prevent those two issues, with minimum quality requirements and prohibitions against unfair contracts, they often find themselves having to also intervene directly in the markets, everything from the US ban on trading onion futures[1] to printing and destroying currency to keep inflation in a particular range designed to encourage the spending of money rather than its hoarding on the one hand without also preventing people from saving on the other, and even to intervene in the employment market because 100% employment drives a spiral of wage inflation that the system as a whole would not be able to cope with etc. etc.
Same deal as the Laffer curve: zero regulation is bad, micromanagement is bad, people argue about where the peak in the middle is.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under socialism, it's the other way around!
BTW, you might enjoy watching the movie Silk Stockings.
Central planning is only one of many ways to do this, it can also be managed more locally; and Soviet-style central planning is only one many ways to do central planning, most large businesses even in capitalist nations are also somewhat-centrally planned by the C-suite.
Even regarding the scale of the organisation, there is lots of overlap between governments — at all levels, from countries, through states, to incorporated municipal governments — and businesses. You could reasonably compare Foxconn to Iceland or Wyoming (I would also list a US city, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP gives me a lot of US Metropolitan Statistical Areas rather than cities, that seems like it would extend beyond the bit with the tax collection rules?)
Even governments get bailouts and/or bankruptcies, both from above (e.g. https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/judiciary-news/2012/07/13...), and from outside (e.g. Greece).
And corporations, when big enough, become monopolies, and raise prices to cover inefficiencies, until something breaks.
These aren't hypothetical questions. We have an answer for them all over the country where state minimum wages are rising in Democratic states.
Seriously, do some introspection here.