373
To End 'New Gilded Age,' House Progressives Unveil Bill to Raise Federal Minimum Wage to $25 Per Hour
(www.commondreams.org)
this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2026
373 points (98.7% liked)
Progressive Politics
4545 readers
431 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I’m in favor of both of these. It means we don’t have to relitigate the minimum wage battle every few years, and paves the way for moving away from tipping, which I can’t be alone in wanting.
Tethering minimum wage to median hourly wage is a good start, but might have some unintended yet foreseeable consequences, since it would incentivize employers to suppress wages to keep the median wage down, and thus lower minimum wage.
Far better would be to tether minimum wage to the cost-of-living. I explained in more detail in a different comment, but basically the formula has three variables: the monthly cost of necessities (area-dependent), the percentage of monthly income (at minimum wage) that should be expected to meet the cost of necessities (defined by legislation), and the number of hours that constitutes a month's work (also defined by legislation, for now it would be four 40-hour weeks, i.e. 160 hours).
So for example, if a state legislature chooses 50% as the proportion of monthly minimum-wage income that should be enough to meet necessities, and someone lives/works in a district where necessities cost $2000 per month, and we're using the standard workweek, the formula would look like this:
($2000 ÷ 50%) ÷ 160 = $4000 ÷ 160 = $25/hour
Which tracks with the legislation in the OP, but it's also a flexible formula which can be adapted as needed, leaves room for negotiation (e.g. states can choose what percentage to use, and whether COLA should be measured state-wide or by district) which should make it palatable to the widest audience, and it should also adjust over time as cost-of-living should be recalculated every year.
That's a weak incentive because the first employer to suppress wages below their optimal level would face a disadvantage versus the other businesses.
So like, the national bureau of economic research has price indeces at ridiculously granular levels. One time I was trying to find an estimate for a client who lived near Stockton, CA and I didn't just have to choose the right type of price index, I had like seven different locations in Stockton they were tracking too. It was just one exercise after another of follow this table to that table to that table which eventually led to actual data, and it could all have been beautifully simplified into a real database instead of the excel spreadsheet we all had to work with, but times are tough in the ledger mines.
Sounds like they could create jobs by migrating their data to a real database...
They probably have it all in one but only let us plebes have access to excel sheets
Yes so awesome they always do theater shit like this when they know fuck well it will never pass. Also always close to election time. But if they won the majority and if every Dem voted yes and it could pass. This bill wouldn't leave committee or they have a few safe Dem seats that will vote No. So I am not exited about this bill which is just fake bullshit to make you think the party on your side and not the rich.