a minimum wage, tied to the LOCAL median income... better than one size fits all...

so once again people are rehashing the minimum wage debate, and instead of demonstrating why it will ruin certain economies, I thought I would address this in a new way, that would appease those who want it raised, while also bringing some sort of "equality" and fairness to the situation... plus my method would provide a way for low income areas to attract employers, while discouraging them from opening up in wealthier areas...

that solution... a minimum wage tied to the local median incomes... meaning, minimum wage in one county, will vary to the next county, or you could get hyper-specific and do it with city/village borders, although that is far more tedious and costly so a county by county example would be the least expensive to administer... this also means, a state or city like San Francisco would have much higher minimum wage as a result of higher median incomes... meaning it would naturally rise or fall, as a result of the overall success of the city, meaning it would provide a chance for the poor to afford it...

currently the problem we face in this nation is people try to thrust a one size fit all approach across the country, despite localities facing different struggles where this approach would most definitely harm business in smaller communities, compared to larger communities which can absorb the cost... we need to provide an incentive for companies to target lower income communities for their business, an incentive for them to move operations to a place where wages will naturally be lower... this will not only bring money to those smaller economies, but provide opportunity where none will go...

imagine this... a company says we can build or expand in one of two communities, the community that has lower wages, or the community with higher wages... now in some instances the wages they provide would likely be above the minimum wage if they were likely to succeed in the wealthier community, because they likely have higher skilled work forces that live in those areas... but some companies might look at the needs for their work force and decide, you know what, lets move into this lower skill and lower wage economy and save ourselves some money, since we don't need the extra skill of this more costly community and its higher minimum wage... this would encourage many entry level jobs, to be in these entry level communities...

for example, in my whole county the median income is roughly $44,000 while the next county over its $76,000 and as you can guess, a lot of the higher skilled jobs are in the next county over... now if we applied a one size fits all application of minimum wage, the poorer county I am in, will be negatively impacted to a great extent, but we'll save those arguments for another day, while the next county over, likely will be able to afford the cost, but it won't really be benefiting the poor, as the people in that county are already well off so it won't really improve lives... but if that company now has an incentive to move into the poorer county to save on wages, not only will the company benefit but the citizens of that community getting the jobs...

I think people spend so much time looking for the quick and easy, we forget the most efficient method is to allow capitalism to work... so rather than compel and mandate a single blanket wage across the country, that no doubt will harm many smaller companies, but also many poor communities, we need to encourage and provide incentive for companies to move into those poorer communities, reward those companies with lower wages available, and simply time the minimum wage to the median income of that local county... that will encourage the right companies to move to the right locations, where it will make the most impact for the skill level of that community, which generally follows the income levels as most have learned over the years...

just throwing this out as a novel approach to solving the minimum wage issue in counties where its expensive to live, but also to encourage and provide companies to move to the counties where wages are lower, often the poorer communities who lack opportunity... this would be a way of providing opportunity where it needs to go, instead of just a blanket approach that doesn't create this efficiency in the system with a blanket change...

for those wondering, perhaps a minimum wage thats a third of the median wage, when I run those numbers, it provides a relatively acceptable expectations of cost of living within those communities, now it won't by any means cover all the bills, but it would provided a basis for a MINIMUM, I am not attempting to have a LIVING wage, just a MINIMUM wage that will encourage efficiency among companies seeking employees, to bring jobs to those communities struggling, incentive for the employer, and over time as those employees are gobbled up, they must raise wages to retain them, as they raise wages to retain the remaining employees, the median income rises, and self-regulates itself, until its better to move to a poorer community...

the math...

san francisco median income $84,000 / 3 = $28,000 / 52 weeks = $538 / 40 hours = $13.46 should be the floating minimum wage for san francisco... which isn't that far off from its current $12.25 an hour... so its a relatively fair number to use in that instance...

los angeles median income $56,000 / 3 = $18,600 / 52 weeks = $358 / 40 hours = $8.97 should be the floating minimum wage for los angeles which isn't that far off from its current $9.00 an hour... so its a relatively fair number to use in that instance as well...

but this notion that we make it all $15 an hour would help very little the people living in san francisco facing an immense cost of living, but it would have an immense impact for the people in los angeles who far a fraction of the cost of living... so it makes sense that a single national number would cause irreversible harm to poor communities as companies will now have zero reason to stay in the poor communities, because cost of labor is the same, so they might as well move to the nicer areas taking the jobs, income, and opportunity along with them... my method would allow us to keep a changing minimum wage based on the median incomes of that county, which means it would automatically address declines or increases in median wages... a self-correcting solution...

andddddd discuss...

 

Let people negotiate their own terms of employment as free individuals.

 

look if you don't want to discuss the topic, then don't participate... if you want to add more than "I disagree" then by all means continue... why don't you demonstrate why my solution would be negative and provide relevant examples of the impacts it would cause... why don't you then further dive into examples of where people can negotiate their terms of employment, and show has that has succeeded and failed under varying conditions and circumstances...

but I'm sick of people who just add one-liners to hear themselves talk... clearly I put some effort into having a true honest discussion about a solution that would address many concerns of people... but if you're not interested in the discussion, please, just don't bother replying next time... I'm really getting annoyed with folks on this website who don't want an interesting and detailed debate, they just want to say "don't be stupid" and add nothing to the discussion...

 

I completely agree with your post and intended no such thing. Sorry for the confusion, I had intended my previous comment to be a stepping stone to a larger discussion.

I do not necessarily base my policies on what has pleasant consequences. I am relatively unconcerned with whether the minimum wage improves the lot of workers if it violates their contract and labor rights. If I want to sell my labour for $0.50/month I should be able to - it is my labor, not the government's. Ownership implies a right to transfer at will.

I think if we went down He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named's route and established industrial armies, we could entirely eliminate unemployment quite easily - within months. That doesn't make it the right thing to do, irrespective of the consequences. The same applies to the minimum wage.

[hr][/hr]

Do I think your proposed needs-based minimum wage is better than the status quo? I can see the attraction, but if someone is in poverty in San Francisco then they need to move to a small country town where the cost of living is negligible. I shouldn't have to pay for their negligence.

 

Compensation should be a private matter between employer and employee.

 

I dont think your proposal is bad and is obviously well thought out.

On the contrary though, I still think all minimum wage does is cause inflation.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

 

What you are proposing is that "fair wage" nonsense, and what happens when median incomes declines in an area. if you live in an area with double-digit unemployment, does MW drop to $4 an hour?

 

Median income does not take into account the incomes of those above and below, other than that half are above and below.

It also does not account for how many hours per week people work salaried or even hourly. If in one town, people make $70,000 working 70 hours per week, and the other $50k working 50 hours, should the minimum wage be higher in the first town?

Also, if an individual hires someone, should they be subject to the same law that a big corporation is? What if an old lady hires you to clean out her rain gutters? What if a single mother hires a high school student to babysit? Still minimum wage?

 

So, some affluenza teenager from a gated community where the median income is high can expect to get a huge minimum wage and some inner city kid from a poor neighbourhood gets offered slave wages? What an idiotic idea. It would make more sense if it was an inverse proportion.

 

" a minimum wage, tied to the LOCAL median income... better than one size fits all..."

the federal min wage is always the lowest, locals can always have a higher min wage if they want too, that is the best of both worlds

.

 

Don't play the tyranny and oppression card here, pal. You know as well as the rest of us that the working class doesn't actually get to decide what they're paid. Without minimum wage, we would be inundated with more homelessness and poverty, causing need for even more government spending on social services, which you seem to want to avoid.

 

Yeah but federal min wage isn't enough. This is part of the reason why there is so much poverty in our country.

 

The problem with this idea is that neither industries nor workforces are confided to defined areas. If you have two regions (pretty regardless of size, certainly of any scale within the USA) with different minimum wages, it would massively shift their economies. Anyone able to do so (with transport or living in the borders of the regions would obvious seek to work in the high-wage area, meaning businesses in the lower-wage area would have a weaker pool of prospective employees or maybe even not enough at all. Lower quality businesses work remain in (or move to) the lower-wage areas while better quality ones would move to the higher one, accepting the higher costs for the benefit of more and better workers. This actually hits small businesses more than big corporations too since the latter obviously have much more flexibility in where they base their businesses (or even parts of their businesses).

We see some of this in Europe, where there is freedom of movement for workers (generally) which allows lots of people from poorer countries to go to richer ones, taking up relatively low-paid manual labour yet earning much more than they could in their home countries. The downside is that this can depress the economy of those poorer countries further and also opens those workers up to mistreatment and abuse.

This isn’t to say that a single level minimum wage isn’t without problems too, just that this isn’t a workable solution.

 

you seem to think an affluenza teen would have a job or sense of hard work... so please save the dramatic response for some other thread, this is about a serious discussion on a solution to a problem... people will travel to areas with a higher median income JUST LIKE THEY DO NOW... except NOW they would be receiving additional compensation for spending the time as well as the cost to travel into that area... do you think the people making minimum wage in san francisco all live in san francisco??? they can't afford to live in san francisco for even its higher minimum wage, instead they all commute in daily because the wages are higher than in their own areas of living...

you seriously have zero idea how people of minimum wage live, they don't live in the areas where it would be higher because they can't afford to, and the people who live in those higher wealth areas, don't have a lot of minimum wage jobs to begin with, thats why they have so much wealth, because almost all their jobs are highly skilled and that wealth is pooled in small areas... and the few jobs they have that pay a minimum wage, the majority are not filled by residents of that area, as they have little incentive to take those minimum wage jobs, instead people commute into those areas because it pays better than the minimum wage of their own area...

stop blowing up and making up ridiculous hyperbolous claims, and perhaps study the issue and realize what you just said was a complete and utter waste of time...

 

absolutely the MINIMUM wage would drop as the community declines... I get it, nobody ever reads my long messages answering most of their questions, because people hate the idea of reading it would seem... but like I said in my first posting, the wage is not a bottom that can't be reduced, its tied to the MEDIAN INCOME, which will fluctuate every single year slightly, and in some cases quite dramatic... its not a static set floor, its a dynamic moving wage to reflect the most likely costs of that area...

the reason why it must be dynamic is self-serving to the community... when we have fixed wages, especially high ones, areas are able to decline quickly when something goes wrong... as high-wealth moves in, it naturally lifts the costs of an area, and as high-wealth moves out it lowers cost of an area... this is the critical factor usually in determining cost of living, as property rises and falls in value, since rent/mortgage is generally the largest category of costs typically for a person... so there is no reason to continue paying say $13 in san francisco if suddenly all the wealth leaves and it becomes like los angeles where minimum wage is $7 roughly... now its never an overnight event, its a slow methodic change... this would give industry a chance to pick and choose local areas over the others... moving jobs when they open business in or out...

this all goes along the same reason why I think we should get rid of all taxes and only have a property tax... as values sink, generally the result of high-wealth leaving, it would mean all cost of living is cheaper... its like a natural tax break in areas that need it, versus giving blanket tax breaks across the board that generally don't benefit the correct areas... this who notion we peg the minimum wage off median income, and peg taxes off property value, would mean a declining local economy would have automatic tax breaks built in every step of the way for not just the property but for the companies, to help spur economic development in those areas directly as they decline... rather than waiting until they turn into cesspools that we have in america... its a dynamic process that helps to curb not just excessive growth, but excessive decline... its all about moderating the rise and fall so its not quick and rampant, and we slow that process down to mitigate wild swings...

and in case of recession, hey you know how we waited for politicians to do something, and when they finally did do something, we're still waiting what 8 years later now for some of the hundreds of billions set aside to be spent? yeah that wouldn't happen in my scenario... as every year as property values change, and every year as median income changes, everyone can adjust and moderate the rise or fall automatically without political input or manipulation... AND it would only target those areas impacted, it wouldn't just be blanket measures that end up having a natural waste of money to areas that simply don't need the help... believe it or not, in that recession, half the country didn't need any help, but the places that did need help needed a lot of it... so why should we reduce taxes or give tax dollars to areas that need no help... this would be a process and method that targeted the correct areas... essentially being the most efficient and maximizing dollars and values for all...

but yes, as median income in an area falls, so too would the minimum wage, my plan is a dynamic wage, not a static wage... a true reflection of what that local economy is going through is the best and most efficient approach for all... its not just that its a "fair wage"... its an economically advantageous wage reflected among that societies ability to bear the cost of it... it provides the most efficient version of adjusting and controlling taxes and wages...

P.S. why don't you give me a city name, and we'll look up the median income of that area... and see what the minimum wage using my formula should be... and lets see if you can find an example where it should be $4 for that county... keep in mind, I'm suggesting we do this county by county, as thats a more sensible regional formula to use to reflect the travel distance people and likely to go for work, especially minimum wage work, people are less likely to travel for minimum wage work...

 

you contradict yourself in your post

I highlighted one sentence from you as that is the moment of clarity and accuracy within your post.

 

The affluenza teenager would likely find it hard to get work since his productive capacity would not overcome the high minimum wage. Meanwhile, the poor kid would be able to earn a wage because he would have the capacity. Reversing the situation, which is essentially what we have now, means the poor kid doesn't work. And, that's why today the unemployment rate for young black men is so high and wealthy white kids have little trouble finding work if they want it. So, you've got what you want - black kids going into crime and/or welfare. Hooray for illiberal progressive "compassion".

 

Minimum wage is not meant to be for living on for long term. It is a place to start, and hopefully grow from there.

Individual areas already set their minimum wages, above and beyond the Federally required minimum wage. There is no need for the government to further insert themselves.

 

The premise is true, but it will be difficult for anyone who thinks that Minwage is bad to agree to any change whatsoever. Often times if people think an idea is bad they want it gone, not improved.

I think that this would be a much better implementation of the Minwage, if you cang get all the sliders right.

 

did you bother to READ anything I wrote... clearly I did not give them a living wage... and clearly I said this is not intended to be a living wage...

I'm sick of people who spew their mouth to give us one-liners and no actual discussion... if you want to have a discussion, go read my entire first message since you clearly didn't already, and then add something more than a one-liner thats nothing more than to hear yourself speak... explain why a living wage is bad, explain the negative effects on employers and people, don't just tell "its bad, I don't like it"... stop being the typical person who has NOTHING to add to the conversation except one line...

P.S. if you don't want to participate in a discussion, THEN DON'T REPLY TO THE MESSAGE... I'm sick of people like you on this website...

 

actually this is part of the point and goal... when you have variable minimum wages, companies WILL relocate to that lower cost area to employer lower skilled employees, which are the BULK of minimum wage jobs... most minimum wage jobs belong in those poor communities so this encourages employers to locate there, thus reducing cost for those employees to get to the work... but it also drains the workforce quickly when we hyper-concentrate the low wage jobs in low wage communities... meaning we drain that workforce to the point employers have no choice but to pay higher wages to steal employees, or encourage people to travel into that community...

employers who will move to the higher minimum wage areas, likely don't have "true" minimum wage jobs to begin with, they take some relative skill, but I don't dismiss there will be some need for minimum wage employees in those areas... this is where those people from the next community over, which is poorer, will travel into that other community with the higher minimum wage yet low skill job... because it does pay more than minimum wage, but they will return home after work because they still couldn't afford to live in that community most likely... so this would at least provide extra compensation for the extra travel time and costs incurred to reach that job... as well as encourage employers to have the most efficient and least wasteful employment in those areas...

we want companies to move and relocate into poor communities to take advantage of wages... thats the way you create an artificial labor shortage, which is generally the only way to affect the supply and demand, and increase wages as a result... think of north dakota... why was walmart paying $18 an hour to START for a shelf stocker? because the supply of workers was drained as a result of all the other high paying jobs in that community for the oil boom, so they were left with paying better wages since we created the lack of supply artificially by encouraging companies to target that community for their low skill jobs...

basically we end up circulating more dollars in those poor communities by encouraging lower wages, and slowly more companies move in there to save money on labor costs, rather than move into nicer communities where they will pay a higher labor costs for those low skill jobs... so rather than force the poor people to come to the companies in those other communities, we encourage the companies to come to the people in those poor communities... creating a more efficient system overall... and once we drain that workforce, we now create lift in that poverty as wages climb to match the lack of supply that we artificially manipulated by having different minimum wages...

same reason I want property taxes as the ONLY form of tax... in depressed areas they naturally receive tax relief automatically as property values drop... its all basically a method to moderate the rise and fall of income in areas by having a system in place designed to increase or decrease based on whats happening in that community economically... rather than blanket one size fits all approached that don't directly target the very communities you need to... so we don't waste all the overhead in the areas that don't need help, and it directly goes to modify the areas that do... think of the last recession, we spent a lot of money in areas that needed NO help, when all that help should have gone into the areas that did... this design would automatically trigger those changes and put them in place immediately where they are needed, not everywhere...

its about the efficiency of a system like this targeting those who need to be targeted, and slowing down those who are getting ahead very quickly... it won't stop them from getting ahead, but it'll help moderate both areas from ever getting insanely poor or wealthy as the life cycles needed to create such great disparities we have now, generally take a lifetime to fulfill themselves... if instead we have annual adjustments all throughout that entire life cycle, we mitigate depression and success, we still have areas that are lower income, and higher income, but we moderate those to keep ourselves from reaching the extreme poverty and depression we see countrywide concentrated in small areas... all while providing companies a way to react to that, giving them a slow change they can react to over time as their local economy changes...

 

Blackwater AZ

 

blackwater arizona appears to be located with pinal county arizona, which has a current median income of roughly $50,248 and minimum wage of $7.90 an hour, correct?

so using my formula... a median income of $50,248 / 3 = $16,749 / 52 weeks = $322 / 40 hours = $8.05 minimum wage recommended... which almost lines up with them...

almost all examples nationwide, my formula using median income will come close with the current minimum wage of the area, ironic hey... the reason I use my formula is because it reflects an accurate economic measurement of what a minimum wage should be for that area, and tieing minimum wage to the median income, give a fairly accurate reflection of that local economies ability to absorb that wage, which is usually a fair reflection of that communities job type and incomes... like I said wealthier communities will not have a lot of people on minimum wage, as most of those jobs require more skill than a minimum wage job does... and the few jobs in those communities that are low skill and would be minimum wage, likely pay above minimum wage simply because that community does not have a lot of low skill people to absorb and work those jobs, so they generally have to pay higher wages just to get someone to come take them...

but my method will reflect local community wealth, and provide a higher base to encourage travel to those areas from lower income areas, which likely is ALREADY taking place... but I simply create a national formula that reflects the most efficiency and best method for determining a local economies ability to not just absorb higher wages for low skill jobs, but typically reflect the work force within those areas... and while doing so, I don't excessively reward one area and punish another... my method won't decentivize companies from moving into low income areas, it will still incentivize them to move into those lower wage and low skill communities, and for those who need to be in those wealthier communities, but still want to attract low skill employees, it will compel them to pay slightly more, which naturally occurs already...

so my method isn't a form of punishment, or unfair... as its what typically happens nationwide already as a result of supply and demand... I just reaffirm this method, and encourage movement of companies into the low wealth areas, to create an artificial shortage of supply in the poorest communities, which puts pressure on wages to rise, lifting the median incomes of those areas... and as they recover they moderate and level off... basically my formula takes local factors into consideration, rather than a blanket national minimum wage that would cause massive disruptions and problems in poor communities... as blanket action typically causes lower efficiency... I just made a formula that reflects the typical behaviors of those areas, and I can demonstrate this time and time again...

feel free to pick another community to test this formula and method... as your example showed how relatively accurate my formula is, and how it aligns itself with current practices for a minimum wage in that area...

 

The median household income in Blackwater is $9,491 and the per capita income is $7,209. I think you just gave everybody a big fat raise.

 

I base my numbers on the COUNTY the city or village resides in, to give a fair reflection of that communities wealth and ability to sustain certain economic impacts...

and based upon my formula, that COUNTY can sustain a $8.05 minimum wage... which guess what, IS ONLY 15 CENTS HIGHER THAN THEIR CURRENT MINIMUM WAGE...

so I didn't give them a big fat pay raise in the least bit like you accuse... they ALREADY get $7.90 for a minimum wage... I suggest they can sustain a chance to $8.05 which is NOT a big fat pay raise at all...

are you seriously trying to mislead and pretend thats a dramatic change to their income? they still have to actually WORK to get the pay...

P.S. are you even reading the messages I post to understand whats being said? did you think I suggested we pay them the median income? NO... I'm suggesting we pay them an HOURLY wage based on only a THIRD of the median income... and I clearly posted the mathematical formula demonstrating this... did you not follow the simple math? it was only division? I simply provided a very straight forward math problem, its NOT difficult, grade school kids do this math... its a formula to show what that local economy can sustain for an hourly wage... this is not rocket science... are you seriously not understanding the simple math? let me know so I can help and try to explain your lack of understanding...