Last week I looked at some proposals by Nick Hanauser-the 'liberal billionaire'-and was pretty impressed.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/06/when-i-grow-up-i-want-to-be-like-nick.html
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/06/whats-next-for-uber-economy-part-2.html
The main point is that we're now living in what you could call the Uber Economy and if liberals want workers protections, workplace reglations, and a strong minimum wage, they'll have to go about it differently than in the past to keep up with the UE.
Here is another proposal around the MW-Hanauser's was very good in that he indexed the MW to the regional cost of living-at the state, county, city, or local level. This one is about indexing it to the median wage vs. the general level of prices. The benefits of using the median wage- is it could do more to reduce inequality and keep the proportion of workers earning the MW roughly constant.
"The federal minimum wage today stands at $7.25 an hour, unchanged since 2009 despite rising prices and rising nominal wages for other workers. Without legislative action by Congress every year—a very difficult policy endeavor—the minimum wage for the nation will continue to stagnate. New legislation now before Congress seeks to overcome that perennial policy hurdle by proposing to index the minimum wage to the median wage—the exact middle point in the overall distribution of wages in the U.S. economy—after first raising it to $12 an hour in 2020."
So that seems to be the main benefits-enable MW workers not to stagnate but make it relatively easy for employers to keep up with. I don't pretend to know all the implications and effects of it but it's an idea that is out there and one that liberals should be considering as we push for a higher MW.
Certainly the liberal billionaire proposal for the MW is important because the way things are now, even a $15 MW in NYC would be less than $7 when you factor in prices. Which begs a question. Do these 2 approaches conflict? Workers in NYC-or even Long Island-along with workers in San with Francisco, Los Angeles, and Seattle-have very high costs of living. So would they be better off indexing to the median wage or the cost of living-as their COL is very high?
Anyone who knows more about this than me is more than welcome to elaborate.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/06/when-i-grow-up-i-want-to-be-like-nick.html
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/06/whats-next-for-uber-economy-part-2.html
The main point is that we're now living in what you could call the Uber Economy and if liberals want workers protections, workplace reglations, and a strong minimum wage, they'll have to go about it differently than in the past to keep up with the UE.
Here is another proposal around the MW-Hanauser's was very good in that he indexed the MW to the regional cost of living-at the state, county, city, or local level. This one is about indexing it to the median wage vs. the general level of prices. The benefits of using the median wage- is it could do more to reduce inequality and keep the proportion of workers earning the MW roughly constant.
"The federal minimum wage today stands at $7.25 an hour, unchanged since 2009 despite rising prices and rising nominal wages for other workers. Without legislative action by Congress every year—a very difficult policy endeavor—the minimum wage for the nation will continue to stagnate. New legislation now before Congress seeks to overcome that perennial policy hurdle by proposing to index the minimum wage to the median wage—the exact middle point in the overall distribution of wages in the U.S. economy—after first raising it to $12 an hour in 2020."
"Indexing the minimum wage to the median wage would automatically increase the minimum wage so that it keeps pace with the typical worker’s wage. Currently, 15 states and the District of Columbia index or have future plans to index the minimum wage to the annual rate of inflation, so that when prices rise each year the minimum wage rises accordingly. Indexing the minimum wage instead to the median is different because it links the minimum wage to overall conditions in the labor market rather than to the general level of prices. In this way, those earning the minimum wage experience annual wage gains according to overall demand for labor in the market rather than a less-direct measure of prices. Moreover, wage indexing improves the ability of the minimum wage to reduce inequality."
"Indexing the minimum wage to prevailing wage levels accomplishes two goals. First, indexing to wage levels increases the efficacy of the minimum wage as a policy tool to reduce wage inequality. In particular, wage indexing ensures those earning the minimum wage will not increasingly fall behind the typical worker."
"Economic research on the minimum wage shows that between 1979 and 2012, more than 38 percent of the rise in inequality between the wage paid to the 10th percentile wage (the bottom ten percent of U.S. workers earn this wage or less) and the median wage is due to the minimum wage failing to keep up with the median wage. By indexing the minimum wage to the median wage, policymakers will help prevent widening disparities between those at the bottom and the middle of the wage distribution."
"Second, wage indexing allows the minimum wage to rise in ways that the labor market can easily accommodate. Indexing the minimum wage to the general wage level means that roughly the same proportion of workers will earn the minimum wage year after year when the minimum wage rises. As long as underlying wage inequality does not change too much, fixing the distance between the minimum and median wage will keep constant the share of workers earning at or near the minimum wage."
http://equitablegrowth.org/research/bolstering-bottom-indexing-minimum-wage-median-wage/So that seems to be the main benefits-enable MW workers not to stagnate but make it relatively easy for employers to keep up with. I don't pretend to know all the implications and effects of it but it's an idea that is out there and one that liberals should be considering as we push for a higher MW.
Certainly the liberal billionaire proposal for the MW is important because the way things are now, even a $15 MW in NYC would be less than $7 when you factor in prices. Which begs a question. Do these 2 approaches conflict? Workers in NYC-or even Long Island-along with workers in San with Francisco, Los Angeles, and Seattle-have very high costs of living. So would they be better off indexing to the median wage or the cost of living-as their COL is very high?
Anyone who knows more about this than me is more than welcome to elaborate.
No comments:
Post a Comment