A major problem is every time minimum wages go up the unions think they have to have many times this. My brother told me this in 1972 when he was a union steward and at the next contract talks they insisted on this. The companies give in and then the poor people are back to where they started from. One of his main complaints was that he and his greedy union buddies would have to pay more for a hamburger. So they felt entitled to their hefty pay raises. The situation gradually got worse. The best ratio of what a minimum wage earner got compared to that of an average livable wage was about 62% in 1968. This gradually sea-sawed down to about 42% at the $7.25 rate. This is one reason why it now takes two jobs to live on for so many families. And their hours are now getting cut too boot, due to the 30 hour rule.
The current plan, 2015, is to bring the minimum wage back near to the same percent it was in 1968. $10.55 an hour. This will work if the unions are held in check and not cause another round of inflation. The minimum wage workers increases always have lagged behind the other earners, a lot who don't need it and are working off their greed. Also part of this plan is to have the minimum wage increase with inflation. This is a good idea as long as it is not just a way to give the unions an excuse to raise their rates and cause prices to sky rocket.
I think a much better approach is to set up work credits. One credit equal to the Federal minimum wage hour. Then when you spend them they are worth what the hour is calculated to be worth at that time. Like the U.S. forever postage stamp. If inflation goes crazy your credits won't loss value like the dollar does.
Bring things back to a time when it only took one person's wage to raise a family. 50's, 60's. ? What ever time it was when the average wage was most effective. Households that can't find or are unable to work should be helped and be brought up to the livable income determined for that geographical area. Starting in the 70's the top started getting 200 and 300 times what the average earner got. Now some are getting thousands times more. How much is too much? I would say 100. Then highly tax the rest over that amount. Another consideration should be head of households should get first crack at jobs. With equal weight that was/is used with Affirmative Action. If you have three people that got jobs from Affirmative Action living in one household and the guy next door does not qualify for Affirmative Action and he needs a job, he is out of luck. I propose that jobs should be granted on a need bases and not race or gender. This then would include every needy person.

No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank You for Your Interest