> "> Cities like New York, Seattle, Chicago and San Francisco have raised local minimum wages"
> "> Laws in New York, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey will eventually increase minimum wages to $15 per hour."
> "I don't find this reasoning very convincing."
those are fact statements--what's to argue?
> "That's the basic problem with a federal minimum wage."
whether a federal minimun wage is good policy or not is certainly debatable. on one hand, states are the canonical unit of government and the fed should generally defer to states (other than for national defense and interstate/international relations). wages and cost of living does vary across states and even within states.
but trade (including labor, as a distinct market) is a federal concern because of interstate commerce and the interlinking of economies brought about by globalization. so it's not unreasonable to argue that the federal government has a stake here. you might argue that the fed should have differing minimum wages for different states, but that's fraught with political land mines too.
He's not arguing with Axios facts. He's saying the fact that Illinois is gradually ramping to a $15 statewide minimum is not evidence that a $15 minimum is nationally appropriate, because the economy of Illinois is not the same as the economy of Kansas or Wyoming.
It also obviously factual that the prevailing lowest livable wage in NYC is higher than that of Des Moines; NYC's statutory minimum should be higher than Des Moines, not the same. It actually doesn't make all that much sense to push the ball forward on a living wage at a federal level.
>He's saying the fact that Illinois is gradually ramping to a $15 statewide minimum is not evidence that a $15 minimum is nationally appropriate, because the economy of Illinois is not the same as the economy of Kansas or Wyoming.
Plus, its not even $15 dollars yet. It's $8.25 right now. You can't even get illegal immigrants to work for that under the table in rural Illinois.
But I have doubts whether the entire state economy can handle $15 dollars. A lot of Illinois is poorer than Des Moines.
yes, and at the very least something went very wrong with the choice of quoting.
your argument has validity against a single blanket federal minimum wage, but it fails to address the fact that the federal government has a legitimate interest in (living) wage levels (again, because of its jurisdiction over interstate/international trade). states also have an interest in wage levels. the balance being debatable is my point.
The single blanket federal minimum wage is the whole argument on this thread. It's not my argument, it's Rayiner's. I mean, it's a lot of people's, it's a very well-known argument, but he's the one who introduced it to this thread.
> "> Laws in New York, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey will eventually increase minimum wages to $15 per hour."
> "I don't find this reasoning very convincing."
those are fact statements--what's to argue?
> "That's the basic problem with a federal minimum wage."
whether a federal minimun wage is good policy or not is certainly debatable. on one hand, states are the canonical unit of government and the fed should generally defer to states (other than for national defense and interstate/international relations). wages and cost of living does vary across states and even within states.
but trade (including labor, as a distinct market) is a federal concern because of interstate commerce and the interlinking of economies brought about by globalization. so it's not unreasonable to argue that the federal government has a stake here. you might argue that the fed should have differing minimum wages for different states, but that's fraught with political land mines too.