A REFRESHING NEW LOOK People better themselves when they have the means to do so. But not all have the necessary means. Which condemns those below the Poverty Threshold ($25K earnings annually for a family of four) eking-out a living. The kids will NEVER EVER get into post-secondary level education (under today's rules) and therefore will replace their parents in mundane jobs that pay far less than Poverty Threshold levels; which (btw) today stand at an hourly wage of $13/hour. Whilst the legal minimum-wage in the US is $7.25 an hour! Which means this (from the BLS here): Given that the total workforce in the US is 128.6M, this above (542K) means barely 0.4% of the workforce (that is, both full- and part-time workers) obtains today's minimum-wage. This MW was last updated in May 2007, 12 years ago! But what is most important is answering the question "What do American families actually earn?" MY POINT What does the above mean for families today? This, from here (Mar. 15, 201: Here’s how much it costs a 4-person family to live in the 15 largest US cities - excerpt: Nobody poor should even think about living in San Francisco, though, I suppose, many do. So, let's take a look at this also from CNBC (in March 201: Here’s how much money middle-class families earn in every US state - where one sees this: Therefore, it is useless to install One Minimum Wage. Each family class is different. So, what? So, this: For purposes of National Equitability (aka "fairness"), the correction must be made at the level of personal Income Taxation, where the poorest pay the least-est. But, where is that number?!? That number will depend upon how much the US taxes the poor. Only national income-taxation therefore has the answer. I admittedly cannot find it ... but regardless of the above numbers, the poorest in America will continue to exist. The question therefore devolves to this: How do we get people OUT FROM BELOW THE POVERTY-THRESHOLD? And into a decent Middle-class existence? My answer: *In this day and age, and as we are exiting the Industrial Age to enter the Information Age, only post-secondary level education (from vocational to doctorate levels) can answer that question. *It is clear that nowadays the higher your educational-level, the more you will be able to earn! Which means access to that level must be as low-cost as possible and even FREE* for anyone living below the Poverty Threshold! *This access is what Bernie and Hillary had promised you. Hillary was elected by a significant plurality of the popular-vote. *And the Electoral College snatched that victory away from YOU ... ! *In Europe postsecondary education is nearly free for anyone and everyone. The access fees to a university in the European Union by a resident-national are typically less than $1K a year. See "attached" link just below.
Let's suppose every last child in the entire country got post-secondary education. Would there be enough jobs for them all? I mean the type of jobs that require post-secondary level education? What we've seen in the recent past (last 20 years, maybe) is that as a greater portion of the population was pushed into post-secondary education, many job positions that never used to require post-secondary level education before began requiring it. Now, the country could probably benefit from more medical doctors, but how many of those going along the post-secondary education path are in route to become medical doctors. We can't conflate the two. And we certainly know the economy doesn't need any more lawyers. (Yes, it's a cliché joke but it's also true)
The minimum wage level would not matter nearly as much if there were not an oversupply of workers. Look at Sweden before the last 15 years. They never really had a minimum wage, and yet lower skill workers were always very decently paid. Why? Because relative labor shortages existed in their economy. If they did not pay a decent wage the employer would likely not be able to find anyone to fill the position. Certainly no half decent worker. People in Sweden attributed the higher pay to the strength of their trade unions, but I doubt unions could have been strong in every single employment field sector, and again it all comes back to the balance between supply and demand for labor, the main reasons the unions had such great sway is the favorable (supply/demand) position of labor in the first place. I think this is the same reason worker's unions in the US became decimated in the mid-90s. (It went unnoticed at the time due to economic expansion, there was a perception all those people would move up to better white collar jobs that were not traditionally unionized)
The median household income is very insightful for getting a look at that. Then you have to take into account how many of those households are single-person households (28%), and you can get a better idea what each individual person earns. $60,000 = (0.28 )(x ) + (0.72 )(2 )(x ) $60,000 = (0.28 )(x ) + (1.44 )(x ) $60,000 = (1.72 )(x ) $34,884 = x So, basic rough estimation here, the median individual income is about $34,884. Meaning half earn more than that, and half earn less than that. Gives you a good idea what the "typical" person earns. (And considering that some of those women are not working or only working part-time, taking care of home and children)
Well then you probably don't want to crowd those 15 largest cities with more immigration, it will only drive up the cost of living. A proposal: Make immigrants have to live in the areas that don't have housing shortages?
Brownsville is in the far southern part of Texas and right on the border with Mexico. There's a lot of illegal immigration and poverty there. A little bit of trivia, Brownsville is the best place for growing bananas in the continental US, outside of Florida. Some people have commented it almost feels like being in another country. One of the few pluses of living there are they do have good tamales. San Francisco is overcrowded. It's just reached ridiculous levels. Lots of people moved there during the Recession because it was the only place good paying computer industry jobs were available. But what they weren't counting on was the cost of living. Workers earning $70,000 have housing conditions like poor people there. Renting an apartment in San Fransisco doesn't really become affordable until you're earning $90,000 to $100,000. There are many workers in the city that have hour and a half long commutes (each way) to be able to live somewhere more affordable. I think it's fair to say both Brownsville and San Francisco are extreme outliers and not exactly representative of living in the US.
How do we make sure they are actually being educated and given inherently valuable knowledge and skills, rather than all these educational degrees just being about credentialism? But that could just be the fallacy of composition, couldn't it? Just because it appears to be true for the individual does not mean it would hold true for a collective group. So we want to be cautious about making any fallacious logical jump, don't we? I mean, is the employer paying them more because they are now more productive, or is the employer simply choosing to hire a more educated candidate over a less well educated candidate? In which case, education is not really changing the inherent level of worker productivity, and the higher earnings of some individuals are just coming at the expense of others. Doesn't sound like a well thought out economic policy.
