I would think it's something that balances two things:
*To account for inflation, had the wage been raised regularly, the actual number should be in the $9 range.
*However, when one nearly doubles the minimum wage all at once, yeah, then I can start to buy the we-have-to-fire-people argument.
What we wind up with is about half of what the number should be- a big make-up-for-lost-time jump without being so big as to be painful.
Also, consider this:
*The current minimum, $5.15, is at or above the current state minimums of 21 states.
*The raise to $7.25 will raise the minimums in those states, plus 21 more (plus DC) in which the minimum is above $5.15 but below $7.25.
*The remaining 8 states are all well below the $9-or-so range that would be in effect with inflation, the highest minimum being Washington at $7.93.
So, $7.25 = big but not staggering, $9 = OWIEOWIEOWIEOWIEOWIE.
Honestly? I think the logic was this:
"What's the absolute highest we can make it and still get it to pass?"
I don't think much economic consideration went into it. But I'm a big fucking cynic.
No, their policy on this comes from a circle of former public officials and intellectuals around Robert Reich, Clinton's secretary of labor. So I don't think it was a politically chosen number.
Sorry, but the statement that America's lowest paid workers haven't gotten a raise in a decade is demonstrably false and misleading and is at the core of why people incorrectly think minwage raises actually do anything. Unless, of course, you aren't actually talking about real people, and instead talking about some theoretical collective.
Yar on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
In all the hub-bub about how the President isn't listening to Congress this little gem snuck on by.
There are klingons in the White House! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-RqyLcDFfw
In all the hub-bub about how the President isn't listening to Congress this little gem snuck on by.
There are klingons in the White House! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-RqyLcDFfw
Going to be a great two years.
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!
It's a great analogy, but only if you're an enormous geek.
In all the hub-bub about how the President isn't listening to Congress this little gem snuck on by.
There are klingons in the White House! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-RqyLcDFfw
Going to be a great two years.
Someone posted that a few days ago.
There was another one where a guy was using the names of Elvis songs in his speech. "The Republicans are going to be all shook up - uh huh."
They really put me in mind of the Santorum/Lord the the Rings speech.
100 hours agenda already finished, finishing in actually either 74 hours or 34 hours of clocked-in Congresional hours, depending on how you count.
Now the House has to start doing actual work, and the Senate and President have to get busy with burying the wildly popular and fairly common sense "100 hours" items so that they are never signed into law or in general heard from again.
Posts
No, their policy on this comes from a circle of former public officials and intellectuals around Robert Reich, Clinton's secretary of labor. So I don't think it was a politically chosen number.
There are klingons in the White House!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-RqyLcDFfw
Going to be a great two years.
It's a great analogy, but only if you're an enormous geek.
Someone posted that a few days ago.
There was another one where a guy was using the names of Elvis songs in his speech. "The Republicans are going to be all shook up - uh huh."
They really put me in mind of the Santorum/Lord the the Rings speech.
Congressmen are such a disappointing lot.
Now the House has to start doing actual work, and the Senate and President have to get busy with burying the wildly popular and fairly common sense "100 hours" items so that they are never signed into law or in general heard from again.