Topic: Fate of $15 per hour lies in the hands of the Senate Parliamentary - page 2. (Read 272 times)
February 26, 2021, 02:41:08 AM
They need to pass that bill, in my opinion, a $15 per hour wage is not enough to be completely honest, the prices of commodities are steadily going up with the inflation and salaries should go up together with it and it is almost a decade since there has been an increase in the wages and the commodities price increase every year. For me, there shouldn't be any hearing about this kind of thing because this is a necessity for workers and a delay will only anger the masses.
February 26, 2021, 02:27:13 AM
Great news for the promoters of 'agorism' in combination with crypto-currency.
Basically, it makes sense to give the statist and social justice idiots all the rope they need to hang themselves. I'm dearly looking forward to the 'new green deal' where energy use is to be brought down to horse-and-buggy levels.
The Agorist solution (to the VERY limited degree that I understand it): Just do cottage-industry level stuff and stay off Big Brother's radar as much as possible. Specialists can make the translation between crypto/fiat at the neighborhood level for now, but they will take a big chunk. That chunk is likely to decrease as more people see a living to be made and become involved, and as more necessary commodities are traded straight across with crypto as the medium when one is needed.
February 26, 2021, 12:17:22 AM
The rule disallows inclusion if any of the following are true:
The majority can always overrule the parlimentarian, so it's not ultimately up to her, though overruling her would be seen as a sort of "nuclear option", so it'd be difficult to get centrist Democrats to go along with it.
Minimum wage laws are completely nonsensical. It's banning employers from paying people below a certain rate, but you can equally look at it as banning employees from voluntarily selling their services "too cheaply". You'd also generally expect it to increase unemployment; if your work only produces $10/hr for the company, then there's no way in hell they're going to pay you $15/hr: they're just going to fire you. Only people who are already being paid an amount slightly above or below the new minimum wage have a chance of seeing a small actual raise.
If you want to guarantee that people actually receive a "living wage" and don't just get fired, the proper solution would be to increase/expand the earned income tax credit (EITC). The EITC more-or-less says, "If you make less than $x/hr, then the government will pay the difference between this wage and $x/hr." So instead of increasing the minimum wage to $15/hr, structure the EITC such that everyone is guaranteed to actually make $15/hr from work, no matter what their employer actually pays them. The EITC already exists in the tax code, but it's small and the "EITC minimum wage" weirdly depends heavily on the number of dependents you have:
I don't actually actively support any sort of welfare like this, but I don't understand why almost all leftists cling to the counterproductive and contentious minimum wage idea instead of the much more reasonable EITC idea. (Changing the EITC involves just changing some numbers in the tax code, so it'd clearly be allowed by reconciliation, as well.)
1. If it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
2. If it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
3. If it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
4. If it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
5. If it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure (usually a period of ten years); or
6. If it recommends changes in Social Security.
A minimum wage increase clearly fails #4. The point of the $15 minimum wage is not to save/collect/spend money, but to add a regulation. That the CBO says it'll have knock-on effects which will increase the deficit is clearly incidental.2. If it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
3. If it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
4. If it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
5. If it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure (usually a period of ten years); or
6. If it recommends changes in Social Security.
The majority can always overrule the parlimentarian, so it's not ultimately up to her, though overruling her would be seen as a sort of "nuclear option", so it'd be difficult to get centrist Democrats to go along with it.
Minimum wage laws are completely nonsensical. It's banning employers from paying people below a certain rate, but you can equally look at it as banning employees from voluntarily selling their services "too cheaply". You'd also generally expect it to increase unemployment; if your work only produces $10/hr for the company, then there's no way in hell they're going to pay you $15/hr: they're just going to fire you. Only people who are already being paid an amount slightly above or below the new minimum wage have a chance of seeing a small actual raise.
If you want to guarantee that people actually receive a "living wage" and don't just get fired, the proper solution would be to increase/expand the earned income tax credit (EITC). The EITC more-or-less says, "If you make less than $x/hr, then the government will pay the difference between this wage and $x/hr." So instead of increasing the minimum wage to $15/hr, structure the EITC such that everyone is guaranteed to actually make $15/hr from work, no matter what their employer actually pays them. The EITC already exists in the tax code, but it's small and the "EITC minimum wage" weirdly depends heavily on the number of dependents you have:
| # of dependents | Current "EITC minimum wage" (rough idea - it's complex) |
| 0 | $3.64/hr |
| 1 | $6.79/hr |
| 2 | $9.96/hr |
| 3 | $10.81/hr |
I don't actually actively support any sort of welfare like this, but I don't understand why almost all leftists cling to the counterproductive and contentious minimum wage idea instead of the much more reasonable EITC idea. (Changing the EITC involves just changing some numbers in the tax code, so it'd clearly be allowed by reconciliation, as well.)
February 25, 2021, 11:03:14 PM
Yup, exactly. I think you may agree with parts of Hawleys plan for minimum wage increases.
Aside from being tied to the CPI, sounds unnecessarily complicated. And I don't know if it's shoddy reporting or Hawley being incompetent, but SSN doesn't imply citizenship. A person legally working in the US gets an SSN so this just sounds like red meat for the base and is either a possibly unconstitutional requirement or a lie.
The article does correctly note that this would basically shovel federal tax money into states that didn't raise the minimum wage.
Might be shoddy reporting, as I highly doubt there would be an issue with giving people this tax credit if they have a work visa to be here.
I like the plan in broad strokes. - Like forcing big businesses to pay $15 an hour and allowing more leeway for small businesses who may not survive paying that wage all across America.
Makes more sense to tie it to cost of living in the locality, but that makes too much sense so Congress wont do that.
The free market is already effectively making the minimum wage at something around $15/hour. Many major companies that require little/no experience have starting wages at or about $15/hour. If you are an employer and try to pay your employees something less than $15/hour, you will have difficulty finding and retaining employees.
Raising the statutory minimum wage is not possible via budget reconciliation. Senate rules are clear on this. If Democrats want to raise the minimum wage, they will need to negotiate with Republicans. With that being said, Republicans agreeing to raise the minimum wage after receiving some concessions is not entirely unrealistic due to my statement above.
Raising the statutory minimum wage is not possible via budget reconciliation. Senate rules are clear on this. If Democrats want to raise the minimum wage, they will need to negotiate with Republicans. With that being said, Republicans agreeing to raise the minimum wage after receiving some concessions is not entirely unrealistic due to my statement above.
Yup, the parliamentary has decided that budget reconciliation can not be used to do this which means that this bill will not include any sort of minimum wage increase. Saves moderate dems and dem leadership from a tough vote as well as moderate Republicans who may have a tough reelection.
February 25, 2021, 10:31:23 PM
Yup, exactly. I think you may agree with parts of Hawleys plan for minimum wage increases.
Aside from being tied to the CPI, sounds unnecessarily complicated. And I don't know if it's shoddy reporting or Hawley being incompetent, but SSN doesn't imply citizenship. A person legally working in the US gets an SSN so this just sounds like red meat for the base and is either a possibly unconstitutional requirement or a lie.
The article does correctly note that this would basically shovel federal tax money into states that didn't raise the minimum wage.
February 25, 2021, 10:24:30 PM
Fate of $15 per hour lies in the hands of the Senate Parliamentary
Actually, it lies in your hands. If you don't like the measly $15 per hour, start a business.
Actually, it lies in your hands. If you don't like the measly $15 per hour, start a business.
February 25, 2021, 09:41:25 PM
The free market is already effectively making the minimum wage at something around $15/hour. Many major companies that require little/no experience have starting wages at or about $15/hour. If you are an employer and try to pay your employees something less than $15/hour, you will have difficulty finding and retaining employees.
Raising the statutory minimum wage is not possible via budget reconciliation. Senate rules are clear on this. If Democrats want to raise the minimum wage, they will need to negotiate with Republicans. With that being said, Republicans agreeing to raise the minimum wage after receiving some concessions is not entirely unrealistic due to my statement above.
Raising the statutory minimum wage is not possible via budget reconciliation. Senate rules are clear on this. If Democrats want to raise the minimum wage, they will need to negotiate with Republicans. With that being said, Republicans agreeing to raise the minimum wage after receiving some concessions is not entirely unrealistic due to my statement above.
February 25, 2021, 07:40:19 PM
$16.50 where fed subsidies 50% of difference
so someone on $10 would get $3.25 from the government UBI....
... so still on $13.25 overall once the cheque clears. still not $15 and still not $16.50
i can also see some people already on $15 not getting a pay rise for a few years because government gives them a $0.75(5%) pay rise instead.
i can see some companies already paying people $15 laying those people off or demoting them down to $13.50 so that government fill in the missing $1.50 to bring them up to 'value' of other workers in the sector, thus
saving companies 10% in labour costs.
though im for taxes being used for people in need. doing it to subsidise businesses is the same as letting businesses get away with not paying taxes.
so someone on $10 would get $3.25 from the government UBI....
... so still on $13.25 overall once the cheque clears. still not $15 and still not $16.50
i can also see some people already on $15 not getting a pay rise for a few years because government gives them a $0.75(5%) pay rise instead.
i can see some companies already paying people $15 laying those people off or demoting them down to $13.50 so that government fill in the missing $1.50 to bring them up to 'value' of other workers in the sector, thus
saving companies 10% in labour costs.
though im for taxes being used for people in need. doing it to subsidise businesses is the same as letting businesses get away with not paying taxes.
February 25, 2021, 05:50:08 PM
This is becoming a bit ridiculous for Democrats. The $15 is mostly symbolic, with many large employers already paying that much or close to it, so it's just going to squeeze smaller employers in some low cost-of-living areas and won't do shit for their constituents in large blue cities. OTOH, it should be a no-brainer instead of a fixed amount to make it indexed on inflation like it's done in... you know... sane countries.
Yup, exactly. I think you may agree with parts of Hawleys plan for minimum wage increases.
Quote from: https://www.axios.com/hawley-minimum-wage-tax-credits-2087ac1e-a007-4095-b2b8-c0aa6d202dc2.html
The bill: Hawley is proposing a three-year program that would increase worker wages in 2021, paid by taxpayers rather than employers.
Hawley told Axios he also would support a $15 minimum wage for workers of large corporations that generate at least $1 billion in annual revenue.
Those making below $16.50 per hour would receive a refundable tax credit worth 50% of the difference, paid out in quarterly installments. The $16.50 could increase over time, as it would be tied to the Consumer Price Index.
The credit would only apply to 40 hours or less of weekly work.
Only American workers with valid Social Security numbers would be eligible, meaning non-U.S. citizens and undocumented immigrants would be excluded.
Between the lines: Hawley's plan would immediately be implemented in the 2021 tax year, expiring in 2024.
The real best case situation is to tie this entire thing to local cost of living and have that done without some massive overarching federal piece of legislation that wont pass if its included.
Pretty such Dem leadership declares that it cant be included so they have a reason to not put it into this Covid stimulus bill. Because if it is I think this bill may be dead by a vote or two. Even if this is a gradual increase, it just doesn’t make sense everywhere in the US.
February 25, 2021, 05:21:06 PM
This is becoming a bit ridiculous for Democrats. The $15 is mostly symbolic, with many large employers already paying that much or close to it, so it's just going to squeeze smaller employers in some low cost-of-living areas and won't do shit for their constituents in large blue cities. OTOH, it should be a no-brainer instead of a fixed amount to make it indexed on inflation like it's done in... you know... sane countries.
February 25, 2021, 04:58:48 PM
Not sure if anyone has seen this news, though in the coming days the Senate parliamentary will make a decision on if $15 an hour federal minimum wage can be included in COVID 19 stimulus bill.
The only reason the parliamentary must make a decision is b/c Dems are trying to pass through budget reconciliation which only requires 51 votes instead of the normal 60 votes (w cloture) in the Senate. The caveat to using this method is that the parts included in these budget reconciliation bills must have substantial budgetary impact.
Here’s a bit from the MarketWatch article about the process:
What do ya folks think about the fate of this portion of the bill being left to a non partisan appointed member of the Senate
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fate-of-federal-15-minimum-wage-rests-in-hands-of-senate-parliamentarian-elizabeth-macdonough-01614276142
The only reason the parliamentary must make a decision is b/c Dems are trying to pass through budget reconciliation which only requires 51 votes instead of the normal 60 votes (w cloture) in the Senate. The caveat to using this method is that the parts included in these budget reconciliation bills must have substantial budgetary impact.
Here’s a bit from the MarketWatch article about the process:
Senate rules require that items in such a bill must have a substantial budget impact that is not “merely incidental” to the language’s main intended purpose.
MacDonough has been meeting with Democrats who have tried convincing her that their minimum wage provision meets that test and with Republicans who have told her it doesn’t. Democrats want to raise the federal floor, fixed at $7.25 hourly since 2009, to $15 over five years.
MacDonough has been meeting with Democrats who have tried convincing her that their minimum wage provision meets that test and with Republicans who have told her it doesn’t. Democrats want to raise the federal floor, fixed at $7.25 hourly since 2009, to $15 over five years.
What do ya folks think about the fate of this portion of the bill being left to a non partisan appointed member of the Senate
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fate-of-federal-15-minimum-wage-rests-in-hands-of-senate-parliamentarian-elizabeth-macdonough-01614276142
Jump to: