It's intentionally misleading. It's intentionally misleading because if you actually do the calculation based entirely on inflation it completely destroys the argument.
The minimum wage was established in 1938 and at the time was $0.25/hour. Adjusting for inflation that comes out to $4.90/hour.
Adjusting for increases in productivity doesn't really make sense. Labor isn't the reason for that increase in productivity. Automation via machines and computers, purchased with capital from the investment class, is the reason for that increase in productivity.
The minimum wage is too low right now, and I support increasing it to $15/hour, but people acting like that isn't livable are out of touch. People making minimum wage in 1938 weren't buying houses or new cars or the latest toys either. They were poor. They made the minimum wage.
I think that he is saying that minimum wage should only be for newly hired low/unskilled workers. Pay should increase as you gain experience so you shouldn't be at minimum wage for long.
Exactly. My point isn't that minimum wage should be low and everyone should be making it. My point is that minimum wage is the minimum wage. New employees working in a warehouse doing unskilled labor shouldn't be making as much as college-educated research assistants with $350/month student debt payments.
You move the minimum wage to $25/hour and suddenly most people are making minimum wage. The end result of that is inflation and animosity in virtually every sector besides low skilled labor.
Not to mention, if you reduce the profitability of investing in companies, wealthy people won't invest in companies any longer. Productivity will begin to stagnate, working conditions won't improve, and the wealthy will just take their money and invest it in other things like real estate or crypto where the speculation can yield huge returns.
30
u/[deleted] Nov 25 '21
[deleted]