Progressive Politics

You're missing the point where people at least deserve enough to survive, or gasp maybe even enjoy their lives a little bit.

You're also missing the point where the minimum wage hadn't been updated for decades and maybe was remotely reasonable back in the 1970's but, alas, we're not living in the 1970's, we're living in 2026 and $7.25 (was it?) doesn't buy you shit now.

I simply do not have the energy to list all the ways I find you utterly vile and contemptible after having read this comment.

Your pay wouldn't go up immediately unless you have a decent boss. But the economy would mostly catch up in a year or two.

Nobody deserves anything more than someone else

How do you consistently have the worst possible takes on fucking everything. And then feel compelled to spew that disgusting shit that festers in your ugly brain out into the world. God you're such a small, vile person.

It helps.

People wont be forced to work multiple jobs.

Cause different parts of the country also set their own minimum wage, some states have $15/hr. Some cities have $18/hr or more.

High cost of living areas and low cost of living areas don't really need the same wage floor.

Yes, the national minimum wage is far too low, but individual states and cities also have the ability to raise it locally, and many already do.

That is exactly the answer. The economy is based on ripping off people.

Not only that. Since in countries most jobs are included in collective bargaining, the minimums, by sector are always higher.

I had a restaurant in Spain, and I had to pay almost triple minimum.

Inflation is measured disproportionally by commodity prices. That's why you can see consumer prices nearly double, and inflation is only mentioned as 5-10%.

The corporations can triple the prices on the shelves, and if the commodities they buy to produce those consumer products are more or less the same price, inflation numbers won't really budge much.

Minimum wage should be tied to cost-of-living, which also varies by region. If San Fransisco and backwoods Oklahoma are averaged together, that's not going to be a very useful metric.

Minimum wage in a given district should be a proportion of the cost of living for that district, such that, for example, a person working four 40 hour weeks (160 hours) should be able to meet the cost of all their basic necessities with a defined percentage of their income, say maybe 30% (although since it's a minimum, that percentage could reasonably be higher, but definitely no higher than 60%).

Of course, what necessities are included, and how to measure their cost needs to be clearly defined. I'd say as a baseline, that would include food, housing, utilities (including water, electric, heat, and honestly even internet and cell service because let's be honest, those are necessities these days), healthcare, and reasonable transportation based on what's available in the area (i.e. viable public transit or car-centric infrastructure). Arguments can be made to include other recurring expenses, such as clothes, but that would be harder to quantify. (Things like savings and discretionary expenses belong in the leftover percentage of income).

So if, for example, someone lives in a place where the cost of living is measured as $2000 per month, and say the minimum wage is tethered to the cost of living by a factor of 50%. That means the person should make at least $4000 for a month's worth of work. $4000 ÷ 160 hours = $25/hour, so that tracks with what they're pushing for.

Of course, some places (many places, these days), $2000 isn't enough to make ends meet. So cost-of-living should be calculated by district. And the specific percentage is negotiable. States with good legislators might deem 30% of minimum wage income should be enough to meet necessities. States with shitty representatives might say 60% of minimum wage income should be enough to meet necessities. And that can change the calculation drastically, so there's a lot of wiggle room. But the overall structure of the formula should be mandated nationwide, as well as a standard definition of necessities and how to measure them.

Lastly, this leaves room in the future for a particularly progressive Congress to change the definition of a work week to 30 hours or so. All that needs to change then is the number you divide the monthly income by (in this case, 120, so 4000/120 = $33/hour in our enlightened future).

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.

The issue though is that the problematic wealthy don't have an income, they own assets that they borrow against instead of selling them so no capital gains taxes get paid.