They should tie minimum wage to their representative's salary.
this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2024
104 points (94.8% liked)
Work Reform
8979 readers
282 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
While the idea is nice because it seeks to tie the representative's success to ours; too many elected officials are independently wealthy from their public salaries.
In some states being a state rep isn't paid well or is only a few weeks of work a year. But I would love a law that makes the Fed minimum wage no less than half a house rep salary.
Perhaps tied to CPI?
$36,500 per year was a decent income just a few years ago. They really need to do something about the price increases, not just continue raising minimum wage, or the American middle class is going to vanish. It's already in steep decline and the out of control price increases impact every working American. Continuing to raise minimum wage without implementing any pricing regulations will fuel hyperinflation when the companies just immediately raise their prices to account for the additional expense. We're going to be left with a country with nothing but extreme wealth disparity, moreso than we have already. People need to be able to afford to live if they're working full time. This current strategy is not working, and it's harming everyone. There is no free market when like 5 companies control everything. They're free to price gouge as much as they want. People can't just stop buying food, or paying for a place to live. We need a better solution.
The 90s was not a few years ago. It was 30 years ago. It's devastating how time sneaks up on us.
$36,500 was a great income in the 90's. There are a lot of cities in California where that was a decent income just 5-10 years ago. L.A., San Diego, San Francisco, and the coastal areas are considerably more expensive than the rest of California.
Something I've noticed. If you watch movies/TV from the 1970s and earlier, the characters will often use exact figures in dialog. Jim Rockford made $200 a day, plus expenses. By the 1980s, inflation was getting bad, so they didn't do it as much, as something that was wildly expensive in the past was now reasonable. Remember the $5.00 milkshake from Pulp Fiction?
Why did they need a report for this? 5 minutes of basic math would get you the same answer.
5 minutes of anything from some random Joe is not something you can base politics. Reports are things you can use for backing many kinds of things.