Should minimum wage be variable?

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

The fast-food workers thread had me thinking.  Should we adjust the minimum wage for impoverished areas?  Two points:

1. We already do this in a way.  Many cities in NJ have 3.5% sales tax rather than the typically 7%. 

2. I really don't think a suburban high school kid flipping burgers should be making $15.00/hour.  But an inner city father who does not have reliable transportation to a more affluent city, in an area where the economy has been poor for a long time and jobs are sparse?  I can justify that.

Just a thought and I'd like to hear your opinions.   

[Consciously Unconscious]

There should be no minimum wage period. 

[Dr. Cynic]

Minimum Wage should be adjusted for inflation.

[DC Al Fine]

2. I really don't think a suburban high school kid flipping burgers should be making $15.00/hour.  But an inner city father who does not have reliable transportation to a more affluent city, in an area where the economy has been poor for a long time and jobs are sparse?  I can justify that.

I sympathise with this idea, but I think it would lead to is fast food places discriminating against the people the legislation would be intended to help. Wage subsidies are a better way to go about this.

[memphis]

If you make the minimum wage higher for adults than for high schoolers, nobody will hire adults.

[Lief 🗽]

The solution to this is not fiddling around with things like minimum wage but enacting a guaranteed basic income provided by the government.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

If you make the minimum wage higher for adults than for high schoolers, nobody will hire adults.

It would be dependent on the home address of the person, not their age. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

The solution to this is not fiddling around with things like minimum wage but enacting a guaranteed basic income provided by the government.

I think both should exist, with the minimum wage being higher than the guaranteed income so as to avoid unemployment traps.

But as for the question, no. There's no point in having a minimum wage if it's not universal.

[Associate Justice PiT]

2. I really don't think a suburban high school kid flipping burgers should be making $15.00/hour.  But an inner city father who does not have reliable transportation to a more affluent city, in an area where the economy has been poor for a long time and jobs are sparse?  I can justify that.

I sympathise with this idea, but I think it would lead to is fast food places discriminating against the people the legislation would be intended to help. Wage subsidies are a better way to go about this.

     Yeah, I really doubt anyone would bother hiring the inner-city father to perform entry-level unskilled labor when the high schooler is cheaper.

[Napoleon]

The fast-food workers thread had me thinking.  Should we adjust the minimum wage for impoverished areas?  Two points:

1. We already do this in a way.  Many cities in NJ have 3.5% sales tax rather than the typically 7%. 

2. I really don't think a suburban high school kid flipping burgers should be making $15.00/hour.  But an inner city father who does not have reliable transportation to a more affluent city, in an area where the economy has been poor for a long time and jobs are sparse?  I can justify that.

Just a thought and I'd like to hear your opinions.   

The problem is that you need prices to be lower in those impoverished areas or else you end up lowering the quality of life for more people than raising the minimum wage would lift the quality of life for. The ideal solution is to have a high minimum wage across-the-board. Why shouldn't a high school kid flipping burgers make a decent wage? I bet he works better than your average forty year old fast food worker, and the kid needs to save up for college and whatever else. One of the problems with America is that our system is literally designed for people to live paycheck to paycheck, and then everyone wants to scream about how the sky is falling when ever the economy goes kaput. I say pay the best wages to the best workers regardless of who we perceive to "need" it. That's what the safety net is for.

[TDAS04]

Minimum Wage should be adjusted for inflation.

[Indy Texas]

The solution to this is not fiddling around with things like minimum wage but enacting a guaranteed basic income provided by the government.

I think both should exist, with the minimum wage being higher than the guaranteed income so as to avoid unemployment traps.

But as for the question, no. There's no point in having a minimum wage if it's not universal.

Most minimum-wage jobs aren't particularly mobile. I don't think location arbitrage would be an issue except with, say, a very small town with a higher minimum wage leading to businesses locating immediately on the town's outskirts (though the town could simply annex that surrounding area, depending on what the laws on that are).

If you're running a McDonald's and the minimum wage is lower 20 miles away, that doesn't matter. There's probably already a McDonald's in that area. People where you are aren't going to drive 20 miles to eat at McDonald's and vice versa. If the minimum wage was high enough to where you were losing money, you'd simply close. (Your workers would now be unemployed and getting zero dollars an hour, but you'd find some other investment venture).

[memphis]

Also, just an fyi: federal child labor laws prohibit anybody under 18 from going near anything hot or sharp or cold. All of those conditions are met in food service constantly. At 16, you can do cashier work and clean up and that's about it.  Most fast food workers are not high schoolers. They're poor adults.

[tik 🪀✨]

There should be no minimum wage period. 

How liberating!

[Knives]

There should be no minimum wage period. 

RAHAHA WORKERS DON'T DESERVE A LIVING INCOME!!!!

 your country is so backward.

[Cory]

There should be no minimum wage period. 

Typical slave-owner mentality.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

There should be no minimum wage period. 

RAHAHA WORKERS DON'T DESERVE A LIVING INCOME!!!!

 your country is so backward.

Our latest GOP hero with 50 or so posts does not represent us, sir. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There should be no minimum wage period. 

RAHAHA WORKERS DON'T DESERVE A LIVING INCOME!!!!

 your country is so backward.

Why should employers bear the burden alone?  There are far better methods than minimum wage to provide for a living income.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why should employers bear the burden alone?

Because, generally speaking, "employers" are the people who reap the most benefits from modern economy, and asking them to give something back makes perfect sense if you're concerned about common good.

[Indy Texas]

There should be no minimum wage period. 

RAHAHA WORKERS DON'T DESERVE A LIVING INCOME!!!!

 your country is so backward.

Why should employers bear the burden alone?  There are far better methods than minimum wage to provide for a living income.

So you're perfectly okay with Wal-Mart helping its employees fill out food stamp, HUD and Medicaid applications to supplement the inadequate wages they are being paid?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why should employers bear the burden alone?

Because, generally speaking, "employers" are the people who reap the most benefits from modern economy, and asking them to give something back makes perfect sense if you're concerned about common good.

Then tax them in other ways that don't discourage them from hiring people as the minimum wage does.  Economically, that's all the minimum wage is, a tax linked to a welfare benefit.  Of course, it has the advantage (from a politician's POV) of not showing up on the budget.

So you're perfectly okay with Wal-Mart helping its employees fill out food stamp, HUD and Medicaid applications to supplement the inadequate wages they are being paid?

Yup.  I'm not against there being a social safety net.  I just think that the minimum wage is not a particularly good net.

[PJ]

Minimum Wage should be adjusted for inflation.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The solution to this is not fiddling around with things like minimum wage but enacting a guaranteed basic income provided by the government.

I think both should exist, with the minimum wage being higher than the guaranteed income so as to avoid unemployment traps.

But as for the question, no. There's no point in having a minimum wage if it's not universal.

Most minimum-wage jobs aren't particularly mobile. I don't think location arbitrage would be an issue except with, say, a very small town with a higher minimum wage leading to businesses locating immediately on the town's outskirts (though the town could simply annex that surrounding area, depending on what the laws on that are).

If you're running a McDonald's and the minimum wage is lower 20 miles away, that doesn't matter. There's probably already a McDonald's in that area. People where you are aren't going to drive 20 miles to eat at McDonald's and vice versa. If the minimum wage was high enough to where you were losing money, you'd simply close. (Your workers would now be unemployed and getting zero dollars an hour, but you'd find some other investment venture).

What if instead of 20 miles, the distance was across the street? And it was a couple of bucks higher on the one side than the other. Which side of the street would the McDonalds be on?

Clearly the side with the higher minimum wage.
http://www.kplu.org/post/why-wont-mcdonalds-move-20-feet-lower-wage-idaho#.UYqUOMk9BvU.twitter

[Joe Biden 2020]

I don't think it should be variable.  High school kids need money the same as a father trying to feed his family.  Like others have said, raising the minimum wage for the adults, but leaving it the same for the kids would result in more families losing their homes and living on the street or in shelters because no one can afford to hire the adults.  If the minimum wage is raised, wages should be raised across the board in minimum wage and non-minimum wage jobs.

[Nichlemn]

Why should employers bear the burden alone?

Because, generally speaking, "employers" are the people who reap the most benefits from modern economy, and asking them to give something back makes perfect sense if you're concerned about common good.

But why should those who hire (and, given tax incidence, consume from) low wage workers be specifically those targeted? Why should a hedge fund manager contribute proportionately less to the social safety net?