Dyl @ 18/1/2018 10:22

The minimum wage needs to be raised No. It would hurt local business and just make everything more costly. While I don't truly understand the difficulties of living on a small budget, but minimum wage was not meant for supporting families.

Just wanted to address a few points on this. First, the minimum wage *was* established to be a living wage originally.

Quote

In his 1933 address following the passage of the National Industrial Recovery Act, President Franklin D. Roosevelt noted that “no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.” “By ‘business’ I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of decent living,” he stated.

FDR's intention was that people should be able to live more than subsistence level on minimum wage, whereas in most places now you can't even pay basic rent on a single minimum wage job.

In terms of hurting local businesses, there is a lot of debate in this. If done with a single locality, there may be mixed results by industry, since some companies can adjust their locality away if they can't pay the new minimum wage, while others have no issues because increased revenue from low wage earners covers the increased cost of wages. If done on a national level, it can have some effects, though it will mean that owners will make less money or, alternatively, increase prices to compensate for the costs. If this was the 50s, then I would say that I'd expect the hit to mainly come to owners, but with the cult of shareholder value, we'd likely just see folks trying to push up prices.

I would think how the general populace defines "decent living" today is quite a bit different than what FDR did in 1933

Dadd @ 24/1/2018 10:18

I would think how the general populace defines "decent living" today is quite a bit different than what FDR did in 1933

Not too much. Home or apartment, regular meals, ability to have a little luxury item here and there without being publicly shamed for it.

Current minimum wage doesn't even get you the first of those right now.

vladykins @ 24/1/2018 10:28

Dadd @ 24/1/2018 10:18 I would think how the general populace defines "decent living" today is quite a bit different than what FDR did in 1933 Not too much. Home or apartment, regular meals, ability to have a little luxury item here and there without being publicly shamed for it. Current minimum wage doesn't even get you the first of those right now.

What most kids coming out of HS expect vs. what was desired in the middle of the Great Depression is not much different?

I don't agree. But don't really want to be vlady'ed.

Dadd @ 24/1/2018 10:50

vladykins @ 24/1/2018 10:28 Dadd @ 24/1/2018 10:18 I would think how the general populace defines "decent living" today is quite a bit different than what FDR did in 1933 Not too much. Home or apartment, regular meals, ability to have a little luxury item here and there without being publicly shamed for it. Current minimum wage doesn't even get you the first of those right now. What most kids coming out of HS expect vs. what was desired in the middle of the Great Depression is not much different? I don't agree. But don't really want to be vlady'ed.

You are focusing on minimum wage as high school jobs or even entry level jobs. They aren't. People are working multiple of these jobs because one doesn't pay enough, but they are living off of it. Part of the reason this is contentious is because people believe that minimum wage is temporary jobs for high schoolers or for people looking to find a better job later. They aren't.

Here's a fun look at some of it:

https://newrepublic.com/article/119269/ten-worst-paying-jobs-america-what-they-are-who-has-them