Frenchfry and Monique, my math skills are pretty sharp.
So, where are employers going to get the money to pay this $22.00 an hour?
My math skills are probably far more advanced then yours. Would you like to start playing the game where we compare advanced degrees again?I see you as a habitual liar MN...which may be why I consider you as the single largest factor in the loss of participation on this site...so go ahead and continue your boasts...whether they are just high opinions of yourselves or something else that requires professional help...I have serious reservations about everything you utter.
Just because you legislate a "fair, livable wage" doesn't mean employers will pay it. What will happen is those who aren't worth it will get no job, and those that are worth it will get to work even more hours.
This is going to happen anyway due to the ACA bill.
Just another one of those unintended consequences of bad legislation, but then some don't pass legislation based on thought and logic. Some pass legislation based on ideology and fairness, and pretend that businesses will somehow change their model and a utopia will break out.
That is not going to happen.
In his State of the Union address, President Obama called on Congress to raise the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour, from $7.25. A month later, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi upped the ante, pushing for $10.10 an hour in three years. Both of those proposals were pooh-poohed as politically impractical and economically suspect. But maybe Obama and Pelosi were actually lowballing the raise we owe low-wage workers.
How high should it go? Here's Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) at a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing last week, speaking to University of Massachusetts economist Arindrajit Dube:
If we started in 1960 and we said that as productivity goes up, that is as workers are producing more, then the minimum wage is going to go up the same. And if that were the case then the minimum wage today would be about $22 an hour. So my question is Mr. Dube, with a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, what happened to the other $14.75? It sure didn't go to the worker.
Dube agreed, then upped the ante again. If the minimum wage had kept pace with the rise in wealth by the top 1 percent of taxpayers, he added, it would have reached $33 an hour in 2007. Nobody, of course, is arguing for a $33-an-hour minimum wage, and Warren isn't even pushing for $22 — she just wants a bump to $10 a hour. But where did the $22 come from, and does it make any sense?
The actual number is $21.72, and it comes from an analysis by economist John Schmitt at the Center for Economic and Policy Research. That's only one of the numbers he churns out to argue that "the minimum wage is too damn low." In real dollars, the minimum wage peaked in 1968. If that had been linked to inflation (CPI-U), the minimum wage would be $10.52 an hour, and if you look at how the minimum wage fared against the average production worker wage, it would be $10.01 today. But the most egregious imbalance is productivity.
Between the end of World War II and 1968, the minimum wage tracked average productivity growth fairly closely. Since 1968, however, productivity growth has far outpaced the minimum wage. If the minimum wage had continued to move with average productivity after 1968, it would have reached $21.72 per hour in 2012 — a rate well above the average production worker wage. If minimum-wage workers received only half of the productivity gains over the period, the federal minimum would be $15.34. Even if the minimum wage only grew at one-fourth the rate of productivity, in 2012 it would be set at $12.25. [CEPR (PDF)]
However you look at it, Schmitt says, "by all of the most commonly used benchmarks — inflation, average wages, and productivity — the minimum wage is now far below its historical level."http://news.yahoo.com/case-22-hour-minimum-wage-103000070.html