We need to stop looking at minimum wage as a set number across the country, It creates a wage disparity for the working class. A livable wage in Alabama would not be a livable wage in California, a livable wage in California would be an insane wage in a place like Alabama.
The minimum wage needs to be directly tied with median housing costs either at the state level or at the county level. The wage needs to be set where housing would only comprise of a max of 30% of income. So at 30% if the median rent is $2000 per month, the livable wage in that area would be set at about $6700 a month, or about $42 an hour. This would help control housing costs as well as keep wages livable.
I acknowledge that, but people keep quitting a specific number and specific numbers don’t work across the nation. Because of varied COL. Minimum wage should be tied to a major COL item like housing
I don’t know if tying it to something that’s inflated above core inflation is a good idea. I think the better approach is to reduce the cost of housing.
Under pressure from employers. If their labor costs are directly tied to the cost of housing there would be pressure to keep housing costs low. In turn still keeping wages livable
Suppose that happens. What’s stopping the landlords from just raising their rents then? Can the government control housing costs? Is it even possible in a “free” economy?
The government wouldn’t need to control housing. Landlords would be under pressure from other companies to keep housing low so their wage costs remain as low as possible.
We need to stop looking at minimum wage as a set number across the country, It creates a wage disparity for the working class. A livable wage in Alabama would not be a livable wage in California, a livable wage in California would be an insane wage in a place like Alabama.
The minimum wage needs to be directly tied with median housing costs either at the state level or at the county level. The wage needs to be set where housing would only comprise of a max of 30% of income. So at 30% if the median rent is $2000 per month, the livable wage in that area would be set at about $6700 a month, or about $42 an hour. This would help control housing costs as well as keep wages livable.
Minimum wage in California is $16. Berkeley it is $18.67
No where near a livable wage
The median required minimum livable wage in California for a single person with no children, according to MIT living wage calculator is $27.32
Even if it does get increased to $18, it’s not livable.
Regardless, nobody can live on 7.25
I acknowledge that, but people keep quitting a specific number and specific numbers don’t work across the nation. Because of varied COL. Minimum wage should be tied to a major COL item like housing
Oof. Rent is easily there in my city. And the minimum wage is… Umm… Not.
That’s why the 2 should be connected
I don’t know if tying it to something that’s inflated above core inflation is a good idea. I think the better approach is to reduce the cost of housing.
It should reduce that artificial inflation
I’m not sure how it would do that.
Under pressure from employers. If their labor costs are directly tied to the cost of housing there would be pressure to keep housing costs low. In turn still keeping wages livable
Suppose that happens. What’s stopping the landlords from just raising their rents then? Can the government control housing costs? Is it even possible in a “free” economy?
The government wouldn’t need to control housing. Landlords would be under pressure from other companies to keep housing low so their wage costs remain as low as possible.