I disagree; I disagree because when places were first doing 15 an hour min, it was a living wage most places. Also, most people around here working those so called 'entry' level jobs are women my age , not teenagers. And also, when I was a working teen [now not all that common], all my money was saved for college, which even in the 80s wasn't cheap.The minimum wage was not intended to be a living wage, where the latter means supporting a family decently. It was intended to be a minimum, hence the name. It was suitable for people just starting out, like mailroom clerks or busboys (the people who clean up restaurant tables). Typically they would still be living with family or sharing living quarters. In college (a long time ago) I got 20% *below* minimum wage at a "work-study" job - part time school job on campus. We were part-time and students, so they felt we didn't deserve a "real" salary.
Around here, it takes $30/hr to afford an average apartment at the recommended 30% of gross income for rent. So that means two people at the $15/hr level, either roommates or a family couple with both working. As a minimum, to me that seems reasonable, but other people may see it differently.
One problem with a national minimum wage is cost of living varies dramatically. When Boeing sent me from Seattle to Alabama, effectively it was a 30% raise due to lower living costs there. So perhaps it should be tied to local cost of living rather than a flat national number.
Every town, midsize city, or urban neighborhood has one, or, perhaps, a family of them: the nuisance litigants, the business owners who address zoning board hearings while visibly intoxicated, the parents who ruin PTA meetings by accusing The Polar Express of encouraging demonry. They are the regulars in the police blotter section of the newspaper, the ones who have been banned from multiple softball leagues for reasons that somehow involve child support. They are America’s local ding-dongs and loose cannons. And, increasingly, they represent the Republican Party’s interests in Congress.
Based on your and other people's comments, I think I see the disconnect. You all want a living wage, so call it a living wage. Stop calling it a "minimum wage". Set it at some multiple of the poverty line, and index it for inflation, so we don't have to fight over it with the right wingers again.Everyone deserves a living wage.
The GOP is becoming the party of people with a certain kind of reputation, from Greene to Cawthorn to the “clock kid” mayor.slate.com
The minimum amount that can support a family of 4 decently for a set amount of time (weeks/months). Hence the name.The minimum wage was not intended to be a living wage, where the latter means supporting a family decently. It was intended to be a minimum, hence the name.
Now add to the above the UNPAID FULLTIME jobS that have to be done on a daily basis. Cooking, cleaning, laundry, kids, etc.The analogy of two family members or roommates working at $15/hr jobs in order to have a living wage may well not apply. More likely, they would have to have a combined 4 jobs.
You know, it originally was. Back when the minimum wage was intended to be a living wage.Set it at some multiple of the poverty line, and index it for inflation, so we don't have to fight over it with the right wingers again.
Ironically, if they helped to pass either, they might do better in the long term - because it would mean they were moving back a bit towards the middle.They're afraid of a living wage and they're afraid of people voting.