Letting states set standards for everything creates a competitive environment that pushes for a race to the bottom. Every state feels they need to cut taxes more and more (and degrade public services), add more gambling, reduce rules for corporate behavior on pollution, etc. A federal standard levels the playing field.
That is a very good point. But then how do you account for the vast difference in cost of living across the country. There is just no single right answer for everyone.
There is just no single right answer for everyone.
Yes there is, its above 7.40 and likely about 15 to 20. To give an example in Canada the federal min wage is $15 loonies an hour, and like your states the cost of living varies wildly between provinces and territories. To help (its a lack luster help) we do generally give tax breaks and sometimes money to the more rural areas to off set the higher cost of goods (you guys do the same in Alaska fyi). To drag out such a silly, tired and dusty line of reasoning in light of the us not being special is a choice.
How do you say that is the right answer? Someone living in NYC vs someone living in rural Iowa need different mins. 15 to 20 sounds about right for nyc. But in rural iowa that would be unreasonably high.
Someone living in Vancouver vs someone living in Milo Alberta could also use different mins. But its a min and no that’s not high, americans are just too used to exploiting people.
I don’t really know what it costs to live in Iowa. But if 15 to 20 is what is needed there, then it’s way too low for nyc. And since the population is concentrated in cities, that means it’s not helping most of the people who need it. There must be a better way.
Yeah, market forces. The min is just that, a min. If someone can not live in a city with a wage under X then if places don’t offer at least X they should fail, but they don’t since we prop up the current system.
Letting states set standards for everything creates a competitive environment that pushes for a race to the bottom. Every state feels they need to cut taxes more and more (and degrade public services), add more gambling, reduce rules for corporate behavior on pollution, etc. A federal standard levels the playing field.
That is a very good point. But then how do you account for the vast difference in cost of living across the country. There is just no single right answer for everyone.
There are large differences within states also. You just have to draw a line somewhere.
Yes there is, its above 7.40 and likely about 15 to 20. To give an example in Canada the federal min wage is $15 loonies an hour, and like your states the cost of living varies wildly between provinces and territories. To help (its a lack luster help) we do generally give tax breaks and sometimes money to the more rural areas to off set the higher cost of goods (you guys do the same in Alaska fyi). To drag out such a silly, tired and dusty line of reasoning in light of the us not being special is a choice.
How do you say that is the right answer? Someone living in NYC vs someone living in rural Iowa need different mins. 15 to 20 sounds about right for nyc. But in rural iowa that would be unreasonably high.
Someone living in Vancouver vs someone living in Milo Alberta could also use different mins. But its a min and no that’s not high, americans are just too used to exploiting people.
I don’t really know what it costs to live in Iowa. But if 15 to 20 is what is needed there, then it’s way too low for nyc. And since the population is concentrated in cities, that means it’s not helping most of the people who need it. There must be a better way.
Yeah, market forces. The min is just that, a min. If someone can not live in a city with a wage under X then if places don’t offer at least X they should fail, but they don’t since we prop up the current system.