A space for sharing and discussing news related to global current events, technology, and society.
69462 Members
We'll be adding more communities soon!
© 2020 Relevant Protocols Inc.
A space for sharing and discussing news related to global current events, technology, and society.
69462 Members
We'll be adding more communities soon!
© 2020 Relevant Protocols Inc.
Relevant
Hot
New
Spam
Relevant
Hot
New
Spam
0
33.4K
0
33.4K
It’s time to question the flawed conventional wisdom driving the minimum wage debate I was 16 when I got my first job at a McDonald’s in upstate New York. It was the fall of 2014; I was paid $8 an hour. It was around this time that I started thinking of my purchases in terms of time.
It’s time to question the flawed conventional wisdom driving the minimum wage debate I was 16 when I got my first job at a McDonald’s in upstate New York. It was the fall of 2014; I was paid $8 an hour. It was around this time that I started thinking of my purchases in terms of time.
Maybe we need $25 by 2025 in terms of minimum wage. If this sounds extreme, remember that the original (FDR) minimum wage was designed to be a living wage. Further, this would be in line with simply adjusting for inflation and productivity gains. “Until 1968, the minimum wage not only kept pace with inflation, it rose in step with productivity growth. The logic is straightforward; we expect that wages in general will rise in step with productivity growth. For workers at the bottom to share in the overall improvement in society’s living standards, the minimum wage should also rise with productivity... While the national minimum wage did rise roughly in step with productivity growth from its inception in 1938 until 1968, in the more than five decades since then, it has not even kept pace with inflation. However, if the minimum wage did rise in step with productivity growth since 1968 it would be over $24 an hour today...” [#FightFor15](/relevant/new/FightFor15) [#FightFor20](/relevant/new/FightFor20) [#FightFor25](/relevant/new/FightFor25) [https://www.cepr.net/this-is-what-minimum-wage-would-be-if-it-kept-pace-with-productivity/](https://www.cepr.net/this-is-what-minimum-wage-would-be-if-it-kept-pace-with-productivity/)
Maybe we need $25 by 2025 in terms of minimum wage. If this sounds extreme, remember that the original (FDR) minimum wage was designed to be a living wage. Further, this would be in line with simply adjusting for inflation and productivity gains. “Until 1968, the minimum wage not only kept pace with inflation, it rose in step with productivity growth. The logic is straightforward; we expect that wages in general will rise in step with productivity growth. For workers at the bottom to share in the overall improvement in society’s living standards, the minimum wage should also rise with productivity... While the national minimum wage did rise roughly in step with productivity growth from its inception in 1938 until 1968, in the more than five decades since then, it has not even kept pace with inflation. However, if the minimum wage did rise in step with productivity growth since 1968 it would be over $24 an hour today...” [#FightFor15](/relevant/new/FightFor15) [#FightFor20](/relevant/new/FightFor20) [#FightFor25](/relevant/new/FightFor25) [https://www.cepr.net/this-is-what-minimum-wage-would-be-if-it-kept-pace-with-productivity/](https://www.cepr.net/this-is-what-minimum-wage-would-be-if-it-kept-pace-with-productivity/)
It’s one of the many things that provokes that instinctual repulsion against an increase of any kind of taxes, even if it’s just relegated to the upper income bracket. Even liberal politicians are lazy about how they talk about taxes. President Obama kept saying he was “only going to raise income taxes on folks making more than $250,000.” What he really meant was that he was going to raise the tax rates in the tax brackets above $250,000. Many people don’t even understand what a marginal tax system is. Each part of your income is taxed at a different rate. So for a married couple filing jointly, the tax rate of 10% for the first $19,750 of taxable income is the same for EVERYONE. You only pay the next tax rate of 12% on the taxable income over $19,750 and under $80,250 and so on. You don’t pay the higher rate on the whole thing, just the part over $19,750. Even someone with $1,000,000 in taxable income pays 10% in taxes on that first $19,750. Even my sister, who is in her 50s and clearly in the upper middle class, misunderstood this. She was investigating ways to hide or defer income so she wouldn’t go above $250,000. She was worried that if their income inched above $250,000 she would have LESS money because the new tax rate would apply to ALL their income and they would keep less money than before. When I explained marginal tax rates to her and that higher rates would only apply to the taxable income above $250,000, she seemed very skeptical and acted like she had never heard about marginal tax rates before. I also don’t know that she understood the difference between “income” and “taxable income.” Their taxable income was still going to be well below $250,000 for the foreseeable future, even if their income inched above that.
It’s one of the many things that provokes that instinctual repulsion against an increase of any kind of taxes, even if it’s just relegated to the upper income bracket. Even liberal politicians are lazy about how they talk about taxes. President Obama kept saying he was “only going to raise income taxes on folks making more than $250,000.” What he really meant was that he was going to raise the tax rates in the tax brackets above $250,000. Many people don’t even understand what a marginal tax system is. Each part of your income is taxed at a different rate. So for a married couple filing jointly, the tax rate of 10% for the first $19,750 of taxable income is the same for EVERYONE. You only pay the next tax rate of 12% on the taxable income over $19,750 and under $80,250 and so on. You don’t pay the higher rate on the whole thing, just the part over $19,750. Even someone with $1,000,000 in taxable income pays 10% in taxes on that first $19,750. Even my sister, who is in her 50s and clearly in the upper middle class, misunderstood this. She was investigating ways to hide or defer income so she wouldn’t go above $250,000. She was worried that if their income inched above $250,000 she would have LESS money because the new tax rate would apply to ALL their income and they would keep less money than before. When I explained marginal tax rates to her and that higher rates would only apply to the taxable income above $250,000, she seemed very skeptical and acted like she had never heard about marginal tax rates before. I also don’t know that she understood the difference between “income” and “taxable income.” Their taxable income was still going to be well below $250,000 for the foreseeable future, even if their income inched above that.
It is worth noting the standard counter to the argument that the minimum wage should keep pace with productivity growth. It would be claimed that the productivity of minimum wage workers has not kept pace with average productivity growth, so that it would not be feasible for minimum wage workers to earn pay that rises in step with average productivity growth.
It is worth noting the standard counter to the argument that the minimum wage should keep pace with productivity growth. It would be claimed that the productivity of minimum wage workers has not kept pace with average productivity growth, so that it would not be feasible for minimum wage workers to earn pay that rises in step with average productivity growth.
Some low-ranking comments may have been hidden.
Some low-ranking comments may have been hidden.