I never proposed $25/hr. I proposed a living wage based on the poorest/cheapest state of the union.
You did the math, introducing my state, and illustrating that 17 $/hr is still a bit low, but in the right region. That might be why Sanders chose his 17 $/hr number, but I have no special insight to his process.
While I’m sure I don’t live up to it, I am trying to be convinced by data, and the data I’ve seen (including the data you cited) shows that increasing the minimum wage to a living wage is good for everybody, even tho it does have trade-offs. I’ve never seen any economic change that didn’t have some negative metric associated with the change in some implementation.
I apologize. I was responding to several people on this post and mistook you for someone else. $17/hr is the median income in the lowest cost of living state. It may not be the exact answer, but all of the debates began when people were suggesting higher rates based on their area, or ignorantly stating that everyone should have the same minimum wage as if cost of living didn’t exist.
Simply put, the federal minimum wage is intended to prevent the states with the lowest cost of living from paying at or below the poverty line. Each state has the responsibility of adjusting its minimum wage accordingly to prevent the same exploitation.
I’m sorry for getting frustrated. You wrote nothing to warrant my intolerance.
I never proposed $25/hr. I proposed a living wage based on the poorest/cheapest state of the union.
You did the math, introducing my state, and illustrating that 17 $/hr is still a bit low, but in the right region. That might be why Sanders chose his 17 $/hr number, but I have no special insight to his process.
@WalrusDragonOnABike@reddthat.com said it should be 25 $/hr. I agree that would, at this moment, be too high for Arkansas.
While I’m sure I don’t live up to it, I am trying to be convinced by data, and the data I’ve seen (including the data you cited) shows that increasing the minimum wage to a living wage is good for everybody, even tho it does have trade-offs. I’ve never seen any economic change that didn’t have some negative metric associated with the change in some implementation.
I apologize. I was responding to several people on this post and mistook you for someone else. $17/hr is the median income in the lowest cost of living state. It may not be the exact answer, but all of the debates began when people were suggesting higher rates based on their area, or ignorantly stating that everyone should have the same minimum wage as if cost of living didn’t exist.
Simply put, the federal minimum wage is intended to prevent the states with the lowest cost of living from paying at or below the poverty line. Each state has the responsibility of adjusting its minimum wage accordingly to prevent the same exploitation.
I’m sorry for getting frustrated. You wrote nothing to warrant my intolerance.