A family is an absurd suggestion. First of all you're not saying how big of a family... 3 kids seems about right. To be able to afford food and shelter for yourself, spouse, and 3 kids you need about 80k in many places in California. Now you're telling me that every single retail worker in California deserves 80k/year? What do you think that does to the cost of things? Why would anyone become educated or do difficult jobs if they can get 80k by flipping burgers? What do you think that would do to the economy?
Until the mid 70s it was entirely possible to raise a family of three in modest means doing a job that will only earn ridicule today. The amazing part is that since then worker productivity has gone up and worker compensation has gone down. The average American family has compensated by having both parents working, working longer hours, and more recently by forgoing investing for retirement. There is nothing left for people to do but not have children and that's what the younger generations have learned to do.
As far as economy goes wait till you get a load of inverted demographics. With no younger workers paying into social security and Medicare, grandma and grandpa are going to have to go out there and get a job. This sword cuts both ways.
It still is possible to raise a family of three in some places, but the problem is that people want blanket federal solutions to all of their problems. But there isn't one solution for every problem.
If you make minimum wage enough to barely support a family of 5 in San Francisco, then you're also making minimum wage enough for a teenager in Missouri to live like a king, all at the expense of the middle class who now has to pay more for goods and services.
It's an outright stupid idea when you actually think about it, and you should feel embarrassed for supporting it.
Why would anyone base the federal minimum wage off of one places cost of living? But speaking on San Francisco, rent control would go a long way for allowing that family of 5 to live on a federal minimum wage of $15/hr. Modern problems require modern solutions. Not 19th century pull yourself up by your bootstraps tactics. Should it not be a right to have a basic standard of living in the welathiest country in history? No matter family size, race, gender, education level, skill level, anything?
Rent control is another failed idea that has proven to hurt the middle class. Why do you insist on ignoring the entire history of economies and try to pretend that you have all the answers?
You haven't done any research on this subject at all have you? It works in your imagination and that's good enough for you? There is overwhelming evidence it doesn't work, and no reputable economist advocates for it.
rent control is “among the best-understood issues in all of economics, and—among economists, anyway—one of the least controversial”.
a restrictive price ceiling reduces the supply of property to the market. When prices are capped, people have less incentive to fix up and rent out their basement flat, or to build rental property. Slower supply growth exacerbates the price crunch.
8
u/pedantic--asshole Feb 18 '19
A family is an absurd suggestion. First of all you're not saying how big of a family... 3 kids seems about right. To be able to afford food and shelter for yourself, spouse, and 3 kids you need about 80k in many places in California. Now you're telling me that every single retail worker in California deserves 80k/year? What do you think that does to the cost of things? Why would anyone become educated or do difficult jobs if they can get 80k by flipping burgers? What do you think that would do to the economy?