Upon inception it was set at $0.25. It is now $7.25.

    • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      We don’t need unemployment as it is. Stephanie Kelton makes the case here (pdf). Here’s an AI summary of how wages are managed without the need for unemployment using a public service employment (PSE) program:

      The PSE program would pay a wage of $15/hr plus benefits, establishing an effective minimum wage and compensation level nationwide.

      It would provide jobs to anyone ready and willing to work, eliminating involuntary unemployment. The authors estimate the program could employ around 15 million workers currently unemployed, underemployed, or out of the labor force.

      By providing jobs at $15/hr, the program would lift wages at the bottom and reduce poverty. The wage floor would pressure private employers to raise wages to compete for workers.

      The program is designed not to compete with private employers, except to establish minimum standards. In economic upswings, private employers would recruit from the program, while in downturns the program would absorb laid-off workers.

      So the PSE program aims to reduce unemployment by directly providing jobs, while also lifting wages by setting an effective nationwide minimum of $15/hr plus benefits. It establishes a wage floor that would ripple up to benefit other low-wage workers.

      In summary, the policy note argues the PSE program could simultaneously reduce unemployment and increase wages for low-income workers through its design and job provision at $15/hr. The wage floor and job guarantee are interlinked policy goals.

      It should be insulting to Americans the country over that one of our main economic institutions has determined that people must be unemployed for economic growth. Unemployment has so many socio-economic problems it’s insane, and it leads to physical and psychological problems, and even ultimately to suicide. Why would we want this, and why should it continue to be implemented, if an alternative exist that better manages wages and doesn’t need call for unemployment?

      • trailing9@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This sounds reasonable. Too bad that the post lost focus. I would love to know what others think about this.

      • trailing9@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because I am not convinced by their arguments. It makes sense if you accept a minimum of unemployed people. But why should society settle for that? Employ everybody and find another way to prevent wages from rising too high.

        • idiomaddict@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          But the workers don’t currently have either- lowering or removing the minimum wage might reduce the unemployment rate, but those jobs are not going to be paid at a livable rate. Currently more theft is wage theft committed by companies against workers, they’re already using the power they have against workers. There’s already a clear divide between union and nonunion blue collar benefits and wages: if there were a textbook play of economic principles, all nonunion blue collar employees would quit and join union companies or form their own.

          • trailing9@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Having neither, it’s the same as the saying about liberty and security. If you don’t seek employment for all then you won’t get minimum wage.

            Let the people decide what a livable wage is. A bad job is better than no job. They can still refuse to work.

            Of course, without new ideas, things don’t change. Not the workers but the companies need a reason for full employment.

            • idiomaddict@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Let the people decide what a livable wage is. A bad job is better than no job. They can still refuse to work.

              The people have a gun to their head. If they’re not eligible for unemployment because a $3/hour job is available, they’ll take it not to starve to death. That doesn’t make it a free or advantageous choice.

              • trailing9@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Of course, if there is only support if you don’t have a job then minimum wage makes sense.

                But that support comes from taxes. I would prefer a society where everybody works so that taxes are low. Of course there must still be something that gives people the freedom to say no.