I still browse this thread because it's one of my favorites to think about; you can imagine my astonishment at 'comment 47 minutes ago'. I'll turn your vague number into a real one, like magic -- 35 million. "29.4 percent of workers are paid wages that are below or equal to 150 percent of the minimum wage in their state." That is, under 12 to 15 dollars. Whether that number is an argument for or against the minimum wage increase is an open question. This little paper is a must-read, if only to inject some facts into a generally fact-free debate topic.Costco and other notable U.S. examples aside, there are tens of millions (vague number, sorry) of positions where people are making either exactly the minimum wage or one to two dollars more.
Thanks for the data points. Maybe I should reconsider my belief that "A minimum hourly wage of $7 or 8 is too low to do much harm." I do agree that the minimum wage has an anchoring effect, creating a sort of baseline from which negotiation begins for work at the lower end of the legal wage range, so a bump could affect wages a little above the minimum too. The map suggests (logically enough) that the 35 million workers included in the 101% to 150% range are more concentrated in states that have a higher minimum than the federal $7.25 standard, so a hike in the federal minimum wouldn't necessarily affect them if those states do not also raise their rates. And it's worth emphasizing that the authors of that little paper "set aside the important issue of potential employment effects, which is another crucial element in the debate." The standard economic objection to minimum wage is precisely the employment effects.
That's definitely one interpretation. forwardslash, I didn't get a notification here, been happening a lot lately. HellllllllllpThanks for the data points. Maybe I should reconsider my belief that "A minimum hourly wage of $7 or 8 is too low to do much harm."
Are you getting them now? I did corrupt user data for most of the day today, so user profiles weren't saving.