Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
How about we start throwing CEOs in prison when they break the law
Yeah I mean there's way more than one solution and we can do them all at the same time. Jail CEOs, tax the wealthy, increase minimum wage, increase union protections, tax inheritance ... The list goes on.
Both?
Both is good
I suppose it's nice to hear that there are a handful of legit progressives out there, but if we ever manage to get a living wage passed in this country, I hope it's tied to inflation so the capitalists can't so easily abuse it and gouge prices.
Inflation is measured disproportionally by commodity prices. That's why you can see consumer prices nearly double, and inflation is only mentioned as 5-10%.
The corporations can triple the prices on the shelves, and if the commodities they buy to produce those consumer products are more or less the same price, inflation won't really budge much.
Minimum wage should be tied to cost-of-living, which also varies by region. If San Fransisco and backwoods Oklahoma are averaged together, that's not going to be a very good metric.
Minimum wage in a given district should be a proportion of the cost of living for that district, such that, for example, a person working four 40 hour weeks (160 hours) should be able to meet the cost of all their basic necessities with a defined percentage of their income, say maybe 30% (although since it's a minimum, that percentage could reasonably be higher, but definitely no higher than 60%).
Of course, what necessities are included, and how to measure their cost needs to be clearly defined. I'd say as a baseline, that would include food, housing, utilities (including water, electric, heat, and honestly even internet and cell service because let's be honest, those are necessities these days), healthcare, and reasonable transportation based on what's available in the area (i.e. viable public transit or car-centric infrastructure). Arguments can be made to include other recurring expenses, such as clothes, but that would be harder to quantify. (Things like savings and discretionary expenses belong in the leftover percentage of income).
So if, for example, someone lives in a place where the cost of living is measured as $2000 per month, and say the minimum wage is tethered to the cost of living by a factor of 50%. That means the person should make at least $4000 for a month's worth of work. $4000 ÷ 160 hours = $25/hour, so that tracks with what they're pushing for.
Of course, some places (many places, these days), $2000 isn't enough to make ends meet. So cost-of-living should be calculated by district. And the specific percentage is negotiable. States with good legislators might deem 30% of minimum wage income should be enough to meet necessities. States with shitty representatives might say 60% of minimum wage income should be enough to meet necessities. And that can change the calculation drastically, so there's a lot of wiggle room. But the overall structure of the formula should be mandated nationwide, as well as a standard definition of necessities and how to measure them.
Lastly, this leaves room in the future for a particularly progressive Congress to change the definition of a work week to 30 hours or so. All that needs to change then is the number you divide the monthly income by (in this case, 120, so 4000/120 = $33/hour in our enlightened future).
To ensure wages don’t lag again in the following years, the bill also requires the minimum wage to automatically grow each year to reach the equivalent of two-thirds the national median hourly wage. It also eliminates the subminimum wage, which is paid to tipped workers, youth workers, and workers with disabilities.
I’m in favor of both of these. It means we don’t have to relitigate the minimum wage battle every few years, and paves the way for moving away from tipping, which I can’t be alone in wanting.
Tethering minimum wage to median hourly wage is a good start, but might have some unintended yet foreseeable consequences, since it would incentivize employers to suppress wages to keep the median wage down, and thus lower minimum wage.
Far better would be to tether minimum wage to the cost-of-living. I explained in more detail in a different comment, but basically the formula has three variables: the monthly cost of necessities (area-dependent), the percentage of monthly income (at minimum wage) that should be expected to meet the cost of necessities (defined by legislation), and the number of hours that constitutes a month's work (also defined by legislation, for now it would be four 40-hour weeks, i.e. 160 hours).
So for example, if a state legislature chooses 50% as the proportion of monthly minimum-wage income that should be enough to meet necessities, and someone lives/works in a district where necessities cost $2000 per month, and we're using the standard workweek, the formula would look like this:
($2000 ÷ 50%) ÷ 160 = $4000 ÷ 160 = $25/hour
Which tracks with the legislation in the OP, but it's also a flexible formula which can be adapted as needed, leaves room for negotiation (e.g. states can choose what percentage to use, and whether COLA should be measured state-wide or by district) which should make it palatable to the widest audience, and it should also adjust over time as cost-of-living should be recalculated every year.
This does nothing to fix the problem of the “gilded” part. The rich are obscenely so, and they control the State. That must be dealt wirh before anything will actually get better.
It helps.
People wont be forced to work multiple jobs.
It won't help. People will still work two jobs.
Every place in America is going to do one thing and one thing only. Every last place is going to jack up prices because they are not going to take the hit. Why not charge you $20 for a small coffee. Minimum wage is $25 what does it matter. It's still cost less than minimum wage... Why shouldn't they jack up rent, insurance, groceries, etc. Corporate greed isn't going to go away just because minimum wage goes up. Corporate greed is going to match and then beat anything. All you're going to be saying in a couple years after this goes in if it went in is that we need to raise minimum wage again.
Unless something is done about the busted system, all were doing is making profit numbers go up (despite the value of the dollar tanking).
It's putting a bandaid on a life threatening wound. The minimum wage needs raised, but that won't help anything long term.
I wonder how the biggest economy in the world has minimal wage that is less than minimal wage in Poland (~31.40 PLN/h → ~$8.52 USD/h).
That is exactly the answer. The economy is based on ripping off people.
Not only that. Since in countries most jobs are included in collective bargaining, the minimums, by sector are always higher.
I had a restaurant in Spain, and I had to pay almost triple minimum.
Cause different parts of the country also set their own minimum wage, some states have $15/hr. Some cities have $18/hr or more.
High cost of living areas and low cost of living areas don't really need the same wage floor.
Yes, the national minimum wage is far too low, but individual states and cities also have the ability to raise it locally, and many already do.
Poland is an EU country, it's not poor at all by world standards.
And size of the economy doesn't have much to do with social policies.
Can we hang the pedo first?
Which? All of them.
Is that above the poverty line?
Yes, by a lot.
The 2026 Federal Poverty Guidelines (FPL), released by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), set the poverty threshold at $15,960 annually for a one-person household in the contiguous U.S.
$25/hr x 40 hours a week x 52 weeks in a year comes out to $52,000 a year, which is more than triple the poverty level.
it wouldn't be.. once the rich crooks that own everything jack all the prices and rents and rates up to 'compensate'.
What we need is a maximum income including capital gains
The issue though is that the problematic wealthy don't have an income, they own assets that they borrow against instead of selling them so no capital gains taxes get paid.
Those are all loopholes we could patch if there would be political will to do so. Unfortunately they're all rich fucks themselves and beholden to the donor class
Wealth tax. More specifically, a securities tax: a tax on the stocks, bonds, and other financial assets used to build wealth.
Payable not in dollars, but in shares of the security. Every year, the SEC transfers 1% of all securities to IRS liquidators, who sell off those shares slowly over time. Liquidated shares may constitute no more than 1% of total traded volume at any time period.
Natural Persons (as opposed to artificial entities like corporations) may exempt up to $10 million worth of shares from taxation. This makes securities - the "means of production" - much more valuable to the working class than to the ultra-rich problem class.
A securities tax is the only feasible way of effectively taxing the ultra rich. As you noted, they easily avoid both income and capital gains taxes. A direct tax on their wealth-generating assets pushes those assets out of their hands and I to working-class portfolios.
We also need to increase the capital gains tax: it needs to be considerably higher than income tax.
And we need a punitively high top-tier income tax rate, like the 91% rate we had in the 1950s. Nobody will ever pay that tax: they will avoid it either by lowering their revenue, or increasing their deductible expenses, like payroll. Better for them to spend it on something they can use than just giving it to the IRS.
Threadly reminder, you have been stolen, for centuries.
Raising a salary doesn't increase your true compensation for the fruits of your labor. You should be asking for dividends.
Capitalists hate this.
Does it matter what you call them if you get the same amount of cash? It all spends the same.
Don't ask for dividends, ask for equity. Ownership. see if they have an ESOP (Employee Stock Ownership Plan. That is a term of art: it's not one you should paraphrase, but the acronym is pronouncable and hr will recognize it) as that is the most common and easiest way for business owners to compensate workers by giving them a piece of the business. At least in statesia, ymmv elsewhere.
It matters greatly!
Do you confuse a slice of a pie for an ingredient of a pie?
With your slice, you can reinvest in whatever markets you wish, tax free ofc.
CX
Interesting edit you made there.
But sure, being part owner of where you work has its merits, but I am talking about labor for work produced. You can't really yield equity on service economics.
But at the least you see the problem with Congress evading the root of the problem.
at this point it should be $45/hr
It won't end the new gilded age, but it can maybe help ease things. Chances are that companies will raise prices far beyond increased labor costs and blame the minimum wage increase. They can do this because there's too little competition in too many industries.
it wont past and this more performative for the Dems, they have been having unfavorable polling as of late in regards to israel/gaza, inaction against trump,,,,etc.
It’s a great idea, but under the current circumstances, it’s performative. And great, popular ideas like this always seem to be presented performatively in contexts this by the DNC, but never when they’re actually fucking in charge of shit - at least, they have for as long as I’ve been paying attention to politics.