I wouldn't complain about a $100k/yr minimum if it was actually sustainable (I doubt it) but the 50% is mostly intended as a response to the fact that the current minimum wage is dramatically below the poverty line, in some cases to the point that you need more than 80 hrs of work a week just to pay rent and buy food.
It wasn't always this way. The federal minimum wage used to be livable.
What would you think about have a base income or "mincome" where every citizen essentially gets a base level to provide for necessities, and then anything else you make through employment is bonus?
I've been thinking about that a lot lately due to the mass robotization of jobs. Not sure how I feel about it, but it seems like an important conversation to have.
guaranteed minimum income. Honestly; that's the future (and dream?) the closer we get to a post-scarcity economy.
Are we there yet? I'm not sure; but... maybe in some areas of the US...? Lots of issues with abuse though until post-scarcity is widespread. Lots to think about, we live in an interesting time.
Honestly; engineers '100k/year' salaries are also distorted by the false floor on the job market. I'm honestly not sure if actually for the higher or lower, though I do know goods/services tied to minimum wage are too cheap currently by far. The min wage has allowed employers to utilize business models relying on arbitrarily-cheap labor as, 'that's what everyone pays' functionally keeps all entry level work low through collusion. The biggest flaw with the Big Mac Index IMO; it's too cheap in the US.
