Minimum wage would be $26 an hour if it had grown in line with productivity
1–10 of 199 posts
Re: Minimum wage would be $26 an hour if it had grown in line with productivity
#2No it would not. The average productivity of a US worker might have increased by a certain amount, but not the productivity of the minimum wage earners. If their productivity had gone up that much, there would be no need for a minimum wage law, the employers would simply be glad to pay them based on their productivity.
Re: Minimum wage would be $26 an hour if it had grown in line with productivity
#3How much of this increase in productivity is the result of off shoring low wage jobs?
Re: Minimum wage would be $26 an hour if it had grown in line with productivity
#4No it would not. The average productivity of a US worker might have increased by a certain amount, but not the productivity of the minimum wage earners. If their productivity had gone up that much, there would be no need for a minimum wage law, the employers would simply be glad to pay them based on their productivity.
> If their productivity had gone up that much, there would be no need for a minimum wage law, the employers would simply be glad to pay them based on their productivity
Agree with your first objection. Believe this requires more data to be sustained. Minimum-wage workers have a poor bargaining position.
Re: Minimum wage would be $26 an hour if it had grown in line with productivity
#5No it would not. The average productivity of a US worker might have increased by a certain amount, but not the productivity of the minimum wage earners. If their productivity had gone up that much, there would be no need for a minimum wage law, the employers would simply be glad to pay them based on their productivity.
"employers would simply be glad to pay them based on their productivity."
I honestly mean no offense, but that sentiment indicates a spectacular misunderstanding of capitalism.
Re: Minimum wage would be $26 an hour if it had grown in line with productivity
#6No it would not. The average productivity of a US worker might have increased by a certain amount, but not the productivity of the minimum wage earners. If their productivity had gone up that much, there would be no need for a minimum wage law, the employers would simply be glad to pay them based on their productivity.
Do you think that companies pay based on productivity, or based on the minimum amount they need to pay in order to attract workers?
If the former, do you believe that if a remote worker moves from NYC to Idaho, and their employer cuts their pay by 25%, it is because their productivity has dropped by 25%? Or because their employer knows they can get away with paying them less in an area with lower cost of living / less high paying jobs?
Re: Minimum wage would be $26 an hour if it had grown in line with productivity
#7No it would not. The average productivity of a US worker might have increased by a certain amount, but not the productivity of the minimum wage earners. If their productivity had gone up that much, there would be no need for a minimum wage law, the employers would simply be glad to pay them based on their productivity.
"employers would simply be glad to pay them based on their productivity." I honestly mean no offense, but that sentiment indicates a spectacular misunderstanding of capitalism.
Why do you think the capitalist pay programmers so much?
Re: Minimum wage would be $26 an hour if it had grown in line with productivity
#8No it would not. The average productivity of a US worker might have increased by a certain amount, but not the productivity of the minimum wage earners. If their productivity had gone up that much, there would be no need for a minimum wage law, the employers would simply be glad to pay them based on their productivity.
>"the employers would simply be glad to pay them based on their productivity."
Maybe for smaller companies, but any business with an HR department, investors, or board of directors is going to pocket the gains rather than distribute it out via raises. And, in my experience, they even resist raising COLA rates despite the company consistently growing year over year and inflation beginning to rise.
I also assert that people wouldn't need to switch around jobs during their careers in order to get substantial pay raises if pay rose with productivity.
Re: Minimum wage would be $26 an hour if it had grown in line with productivity
#9No it would not. The average productivity of a US worker might have increased by a certain amount, but not the productivity of the minimum wage earners. If their productivity had gone up that much, there would be no need for a minimum wage law, the employers would simply be glad to pay them based on their productivity.
"employers would simply be glad to pay them based on their productivity." I honestly mean no offense, but that sentiment indicates a spectacular misunderstanding of capitalism.
Not when we are talking about $15 vs $26 per hour. If you think there are workers out there whose productivity is $26/hour, but who can't find work at more than $15/hour, then you can truly disrupt the market and hire all these workers for $20/hour and become rich.
PS: it looks like the federal minimum wage is still $7.25 [1], not $15. You can become richer.
Re: Minimum wage would be $26 an hour if it had grown in line with productivity
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
"employers would simply be glad to pay them based on their productivity." I honestly mean no offense, but that sentiment indicates a spectacular misunderstanding of capitalism.
Why do you think the capitalist pay programmers so much?
Because they don't have an alternative. If the supply of programmers was as large as the supply of minimum wage workers pay would drop significantly.