
America has never gone this long without hiking the federal minimum wage - howard941
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/06/18/america-has-never-gone-this-long-without-hiking-federal-minimum-wage/
======
jasonjei
Frankly, I think UBI is a much better solution than increasing federal minimum
wage. I think the problem with increasing minimum wage is that employers will
be less likely to hire or more likely to look to automation to decrease human
hiring needs. McDonald’s has already rolled out self-service kiosks, replacing
cashiers entirely.

UBI, on the other hand, can supplement wages.

~~~
phkahler
I have yet to see any evidence that UBI would accomplish any of the things its
proponents think it will. The first unintended consequence I predict would be
increases in rent, food, and other basic things. I believe a better solution
to helping the lower end of the economic ladder would be things that reduce
the basic cost of living.

~~~
lostphilosopher
I'd be interested in an answer to this too. We've seen a similar phenomenon in
college costs - more government loan money available, higher tuition, repeat.
Why would UBI not result in a general uptick in costs that would mean the
"purchasing power" of the consumer is the same? I think providing the basic
services themselves would be more effective and efficient, even with the
bureaucratic overhead.

~~~
basch
Im sure Im wrong, but wouldnt it make sense to start with like "all rice,
bean, potatoes, and broccoli consumption at the personal level is free" and
start with a food stamp / ebt that buys unlimited of something very specific?
It wouldnt be a currency thats worth trading to other people, landlords
couldnt collect ebt credits in lieu of rent, because everyone would already
have unlimited.

Instead of subsidizing agriculture at the production side, you can combine
farm subsidies, food stamps, and ubi into one consumer credit, designed to
persuade people to consume mostly free food over luxury food.

Whats the next thing it would make sense to subsidize for everyone without
creating some kind of cyclical purchasing power loop?

------
gojomo
The USA went 149 years, from 1789 to 1938, with no federal minimum wage – so
yes, America has gone longer without any hike than just than the 10 years
since 2009.

Many economic experts, ignored by this article, consider no minimum wage to be
the optimal level.

~~~
FussyZeus
> The USA went 149 years, from 1789 to 1938, with no federal minimum wage – so
> yes, America has gone longer without any hike than just than the 10 years
> since 2009.

You're (likely deliberately) omitting a ton of context as well as presenting a
bad faith argument in general. Of course there were no minimum wage increases
prior to the minimum wage. I also suspect there was no highway funding
increases prior to the New Deal, does that in turn mean we shouldn't fund
infrastructure now?

> Many economic experts, ignored by this article, consider no minimum wage to
> be the optimal level.

I'm sure they do, economic experts are the only ones who still think trickle-
down economics is a good idea. Our economy is exploding, and our current
problems are far more social, so maybe we should be listening to the
sociologists and put the economy on the back burner for right now?

~~~
cal5k
As an outsider (I'm Canadian), I find this debate to be interesting. From my
perspective, the American project is one that emphasized individual liberty,
with only a small set of powers granted to the federal government by the
constitution. It was expected that helping others would happen via voluntary
means (churches, charitable organizations, etc.) rather than compulsory ones.

In that context, you could look at the data on inequality and still make a
principled argument as to why a federal minimum wage is undesirable.

~~~
jandrewrogers
This is a misunderstanding. The Federal government has a small set of powers
because almost all legal and political power is vested in the individual
States, which have most of the remit and authority of sovereign countries.
Americans have always lived under the expansive social policy regimes of their
respective States, which vary widely. It is only in the 20th century that the
Federal government started dabbling in social policy at all.

Every State I have ever lived in had their own unique minimum wage laws. The
Federal government is more like the EU, much of its policy function is to
harmonize the laws of the States. Americans have almost no interaction with
the Federal government; the laws they live under, the taxes they pay, and the
social programs available to them are almost always specific to the State.

~~~
cal5k
Didn't you just make the same argument for why a _federal_ minimum wage would
be unprincipled?

~~~
jandrewrogers
I wasn't trying to make a point per se, just clarifying a common misconception
about social policy in the US. The policies that exist or not at the Federal
level tell you very little about the policies Americans live under; at best,
it bounds variability of policy.

~~~
cal5k
That's fair, although those boundaries are pretty foundational to day-to-day
life in America.

------
desas
For comparison in the same time period (2009-2019) the UK minimum wage for
over 25s has increased from £5.80 to £8.21. This roughly tracks UK inflation
(CPI) and changes to the average wage over the same time period.

~~~
yung_donair
I'm only just learning about the UK's age-dependent minimum wage [1] Is there
any explanation for why such a system is used? Certainly there's plenty of
financially-independent under-25s who are paid less merely because of their
age, which doesn't really seem appropriate. Do other countries in Europe
follow similar minimum wage schemes?

EDIT: I found a paper [2] from the Netherlands (who also use an age-dependent
minimum wage) suggesting that such a system can increase job termination rates
close to employees birthdays.

[1]: [https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-
rates](https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-rates)

[2]: [http://ftp.iza.org/dp9528.pdf](http://ftp.iza.org/dp9528.pdf)

~~~
rchaud
If the wage was the same for an 18yo with no experience vs. a 25yo who doesn't
need much handholding, nobody would hire the 18yo. In most cases, older
workers will also have greater financial responsibilities than a teen, so a
higher wage makes sense.

~~~
yung_donair
> nobody would hire the 18yo

Here in Canada, the provincial minimum wage is consistent regardless of age
and yet I still see plenty of employed high school students. I also don't
think that its fair to make policy-affecting assumptions regarding peoples
financial responsibilities based on their age alone. I know plenty of
independent 20 year olds who have significant financial responsibilities as
well as 25 year olds who are voluntarily financially dependent on their
parents etc. In this situation I believe an age-dependent minimum wage can
actually increase inequality by determining wages based on an arbitrary metric
such as age.

~~~
slavik81
According to StatCan[1], the unemployment rate for people aged 15-24 is more
than double that of people over 25. Speaking for myself, it was brutally
difficult to find my first job. I was unemployed for months.

Alberta is introducing a lower minimum wage for ages 16–18. I don't
particularly like having a minimum wage that discriminates based on age, but
we already have a bunch of special employment laws for minors. I actually lost
my job as a concessions cashier to one of those restrictions when I was 17.

1:
[https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=141003...](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410032701)

------
sunshinelackof
While in my opinion the minimum raise should be raised quite a lot, there are
a lot of labor reforms needed. In particular for work that falls outside of
the salaried work. Waged, contracted, seasonal, and temp workers do not have a
lot of power in the labor market. It's actually a pretty hostile environment
for individuals who don't want to collect a salary and sit at a desk.

I view the problem through this lens. That essentially we have a labor surplus
because the current regulatory environment is designed around salaried office
workers - barring a few holdovers in the form of labor unions. The total size
of the labor market is larger than the carrying capacity of office jobs. As
the environment has aged firms learned how to play the game and have pushed a
lot of small competition out. Meanwhile laborers compete for a smaller pool of
office jobs or hope they land on their feet.

This is really the nature of regulation though, it can rarely be meant to last
forever and should receive continuous development and audits.

~~~
tetra_proxy
Salaried work has it's problems as well. I have worked at jobs where you're
expected to work 60+ hours every week for no extra pay.

------
RickJWagner
We haven't gone this long without hiking the minimum wage.

And we have very low unemployment, rising wages, and a roaring economy. We've
also got low inflation and a robust stock market.

This bears further consideration. The economy may be close to optimal.

------
vpribish
inflation has been incredibly low

~~~
cujic9
In my opinion, inflation is poorly defined.

The metrics we use to measure inflation (e.g. CPI) have grown slowly, but that
doesn't mean that inflation is low.

------
baggy_trough
This is very good news for teenagers and the low skilled.

~~~
glenda
Everyone deserves a living wage

~~~
jerf
When I was in high school and part-time shelving books at the local town
library, no I didn't. Not for that work. Pocket money for a teenager was about
the right amount of pay.

Not everyone is a single mother trying to make ends meet for her two children.
We should not make economic policy as if they are.

"So why don't we take care of them?" Single mothers trying to make ends meet
have access to a wide array of social programs already. We are already not
abandoning them to the tender mercies of minimum wage and nothing else.

~~~
smileysteve
> When I was in high school and part-time

> Not everyone is a single mother trying to make ends meet

In the meantime, student loans are at an all time high!

Whether or not you had college paid for by somebody else who saved or even if
you didn't need to go; Teenagers need more than pocket money, afterall, in 2
years they will, for the median, be committing to loan terms that will take
10+ years to pay off, if they ever do.

~~~
hodr
Isn't that an argument for addressing the costs of tuition, and not an
argument for artificially setting the value of labor?

~~~
smileysteve
Not in isolation. A 16 year old's upcoming expenses are a car, car insurance,
tuition, housing, food, and more... And if possible should be contributing to
a retirement account as well.

A 16 year old also may not have a college opportunity and may decide to go
straight to work, may decide to go straight to having a family with a high
school sweetheart. At that point, the 16-18 year old needs a liveable wage
too.

~~~
radford-neal
No, 16-year-olds should not be contributing to retirement accounts. The return
on investment in such an account will be far less than the return from
investing that money in increasing their own human capital. This could be by
buying good books to read, buying a computer to learn to program on, or paying
for movie tickets to go out on a date with someone who may be their future
spouse.

