Project 2028: Wages
Audio Recording by George Hahn
Democrats need to be the party of ideas, not indignation. Our “Project 2028” series addresses critical issues facing America through a No Mercy / No Malice lens. Today, we shift from housing to wages.
Maximizing Wages
Before he was sworn in as Treasury secretary in January, hedge fund manager Scott Bessent warned that failing to extend $4 trillion in tax cuts would trigger an “economic calamity.” This is true if “calamity” means a reduction in the wealth of the richest Americans and large corporations. What bullshit. The real calamity is the poverty and inequality that’s set to worsen as the Trump administration advances policies that will disproportionately benefit a small number of people (see above: the richest Americans).
The illusion of complexity is weaponized by the incumbents to mask a simple truth: The clearest blue-line path to a decrease in obesity, depression, incarceration, gun deaths, divorce, diabetes, homelessness, and crime is … wait for it … to put more money in the pockets of lower- and middle-income citizens. And the easiest way to do this is to hike the minimum wage. Raising the pay floor to $25 an hour would ensure that Americans can afford to have children (if they want), feed their families, and pay for housing and health care. In 2009 the minimum wage was $7.25. Since then, the cost of a Big Mac, the average rent, and the Nasdaq have risen 60%, 70%, and 800%, respectively. Meanwhile, the minimum wage has rocketed from $7.25 to … $7.25.
Even though many states and cities have raised their minimum wage, 1 in 4 U.S. workers still makes less than $17 an hour. With the government failing to act and many companies content to sequester record profits at the expense of the working class, leaders of successful American businesses should step up — CEOs who are willing to pay as much as they can, not as little as they can get away with.
Living Wage
The system is broken when 18 million U.S. households are struggling to secure enough food, and 12 million renter households are “severely cost burdened,” spending more than half their earnings on housing and utilities. In theory, wages are dictated by the market. But the market is inherently imbalanced, and employers are the ones who have the upper hand. The government has the power to level the playing field by setting the floor on compensation at a “living wage” — what a full-time worker must earn on an hourly basis to cover the cost of their family’s basic needs. This should be table stakes. In a society where one company (Nasdaq: NVDA) adds $277 billion in market capitalization within five minutes of its earnings release, and 1 in 5 households with children is food insecure, we have decided that America is an operating system to optimize the output of the bottom 99% for the benefit of the top 1%. Enough already.
But a living wage means much more than that. Vulnerable workers are less likely to defer medical care, suffer from depression and anxiety, or commit suicide. Less likely to burden emergency rooms, lose their job due to illness, or get saddled with crippling debt. We know increasing family income dramatically improves childhood development, producing better-educated and healthier adults. It’s also a race- and gender-blind means of redressing inequality in pay and increasing opportunities for women and ethnic minorities, who are overrepresented in low-wage jobs. This is affirmative action as it was meant to be: focusing on people who need it most vs. their identity.
In Los Angeles, a single adult without children needs an hourly wage of $27.81 to cover basic costs, according to MIT’s Living Wage Calculator. Two working parents with two children must each earn $32.69 an hour. L.A. is expensive, but the living wage in many parts of the country isn’t significantly lower.
In Kansas City, the living wage for a single adult is $22.75, or $27.55 for two working parents with two kids. In Mississippi, the poorest state in America, you’d need to make an hourly wage of $20.75 or $22.43, respectively.
Pay Your People
In his confirmation hearing, Bessent said he sees the minimum wage debate as “more of a statewide and regional issue.” Elected leaders are big on “states rights” as a weapon of mass distraction when it suits their agenda. And indeed, many states have stepped into the void. By 2027, 19 states and Washington, D.C. — covering almost half the U.S. workforce — will likely have a minimum wage of at least $15 an hour. But this is a critical federal issue, one that Democrats should continue to spotlight. The meager minimum wage has a knock-on effect, keeping pay lower for millions of people.
The numbers paint a depressing picture. Although relatively few people receive the federal minimum, many are struggling to stay afloat. Almost 6 in 10 jobs pay less than $25 an hour. There isn’t a single state, metro area, or county in the U.S. where a full-time, minimum-wage worker can afford a modest two-bedroom rental.
Scare Tactics
You always hear the same bullshit narrative from opponents of increasing the minimum wage. They argue it will hamper the competitiveness of businesses and lead to closures and job losses, hurting the workers it’s meant to help. If employers have to pay workers more, they’ll hire fewer of them. These are scare tactics: Research shows raising the minimum wage would have little to no impact on employment. In fact, it can have a stimulative effect as workers spend their additional earnings. When paid well, workers are more productive, and they’re less likely to leave, reducing costs for employers. Some businesses fold, and they should. They are the weakest performers and, quite frankly, shouldn’t be in business. The lost employment is mostly absorbed by stronger firms.
Another way businesses adapt to higher wages is by raising prices. But economists find it leads to scant price hikes. One analysis of restaurant food pricing between 1978 and 2015 showed prices rose by just 0.36% for every 10% increase in the minimum wage. There’s rarely a free lunch, and some companies (e.g., McDonald’s, Walmart) would register a significant decrease in profits and share price. It would be worth it.
The Decline of Unions
For much of the 20th century, unions played a critical role in trying to equalize the balance of power and obtain higher wages for workers. However, unions have struggled to overcome corruption, adapt to innovation, and maintain relevance. The share of U.S. workers who belong to a union fell to about 10% in 2023, from about a third in the 1950s. Although 70% of Americans say they approve of labor unions, only 28% say they have “quite a lot” or a “great deal” of confidence in them. The states that need unions the most are hostile to them, and the overwhelming majority of Western nations with unions have shed membership. In sum, unions aren’t effective. There should be one union, the federal government. And its first act should be introducing a $25-an-hour minimum wage.
The U.S. economy can support a far larger share of wealth going to lower-income workers. Between 1938 — when Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the first minimum wage into law — and 1968, the federal minimum was regularly increased to account for inflation and productivity. A 2020 study found that if the U.S. had continued to increase the minimum hourly wage in line with inflation and productivity growth, it would have reached $21.50 an hour. Today it would be close to $25.
More than tripling the minimum wage wouldn’t be easy. The shift would need to occur in phases. Some sectors/regions can make reasonable arguments in favor of exemptions. The living wage is also not the same in all regions, so some exceptions would make sense, though we’re an increasingly national economy. The prevalence of chain stores and online platforms with standardized pricing are closing regional gaps.
Soaring CEOs
We need a system where successful CEOs and founders who demonstrate real talent earn enormous pay. And workers at the other end of the spectrum earn a decent living. That’s often not the case. Income inequality has gone berserk. From 1978 to 2023, compensation for top CEOs exploded 1,085%, compared with a 24% rise in the typical worker’s pay. The median pay package for an S&P 500 company leader climbed to more than $16 million in 2023 — almost 200 times the median worker’s wages.
Sue Nabi, CEO of beauty products company Coty, earned an eye-popping $149 million in 2023, while the median worker at the company earned $39,643. Those employees would need to work for 3,769 years to earn what Nabi received in one, according to an analysis last year by the New York Times. Lowe’s, meanwhile, spent $42.6 billion buying back its own shares between 2019 and 2023 — enough to have given each of the company’s 285,000 employees an annual $29,865 bonus for five years, according to the Institute for Policy Studies. While CEO Marvin Ellison received $18.2 million in 2023, the retailer’s median annual worker pay was just $32,626.
$100,000/Year
Successful independent businesses can’t lead the revolution, but should support it. Not only can many companies increase their labor costs, they should, even if it takes a modest bite out of the earnings of the ownership class. This makes financial and economic sense, while generating reputational benefits, too. Think about companies that carry the Fairtrade stamp guaranteeing farmers and workers receive a minimum price plus a premium payment to invest in improving their quality of life.
Companies are starting to get it. Bank of America has been raising its U.S. minimum hourly wage and pledges to hit $25 this year. CEO Brian Moynihan expects to get “payback” in the form of lower turnover. Globally, L’Oreal, Schneider Electric, and Unilever are among corporations that have committed to provide “living wages.”
Moral Failure
Democrats shouldn’t lose sight of the extent to which this issue resonates with vast swaths of the American public. Polling shows the long-debated idea of raising the minimum wage is popular with Republicans and Democrats alike. For Kamala Harris, waiting until two weeks before the election to make a case for boosting the minimum wage to at least $15 an hour felt $10 short and several years late.
Since 2000, corporate after-tax profits have surged roughly sixfold, while wages have only inched higher. An economy that values work below the cost of living is broken. An economy that does so while delivering massive profits to wealthy owners is a moral failure. Inequality is a choice. We have the power to give all Americans an opportunity to earn a wage that allows them to live a life of dignity. What happens next is up to us.
CEOs and entrepreneurs should be bold. Today I’m making a commitment to pay my Prof G contractors and employees at least $50/hour or $100,000 a year in total compensation, respectively. And I’m challenging other CEOs/entrepreneurs to join me. I make a shit-ton of money, and I deserve it. Also, America and the people who work with me deserve great wages. A shit-ton minus half a million dollars each year (the cost for Prof G Media to become a Maximum Wage Firm) is fine. It’s not only the right thing to do, it’s smart business. If I sound like I’m virtue signalling, trust your instincts. And that’s OK.
Unlock
One of the biggest unlocks in my life has been recognizing that being a man means adding surplus value: creating more tax revenue than I absorb, listening to more complaints than I make, noticing people’s lives, providing more (net) care and love. I have run firms my whole life, and I’ve always aimed to provide the minimum compensation required such that employees won’t leave. No more. BTW, this is how nearly all companies work, optimizing for profits. This is a result of the incentive system in a capitalist society, as it increases the enterprise value (profits) of the firm — and the likelihood the business survives. Our entire society now prays at the altar of shareholder value, prioritizing them over every other stakeholder … dramatically. If you are blessed with a company that’s doing well, why wouldn’t you pay more than you need to? Do you love your kids, community, and country just enough that they don’t abandon you?
One of the most rewarding things about running a firm is it mimics some of the m/paternal feelings of reward you get from protecting and providing for your offspring. I’ve worked hard, I’m talented, and I made the genius decision to be born in America. The result is I’ve got a firm that’s exceptionally profitable. One of the (many) rewards of that is I get to pay people more than I need to. It feels great.
Life is so rich,
Founder, Prof G Media, a Maximum Wage Firm
P.S. Every week I answer your questions on the Prof G Pod Office Hours. This week: generational wealth, dirty jokes, and Reddit. Listen here on Apple or Spotify or binge-watch them at all on YouTube.
P.P.S. Last chance to sign up for Section’s free day of micro-workshops, Become an AI Leader in a Day. Join them next Thursday and walk away with a certification.
Henry Ford was one of the first industrialists to pay his employees a “living wage.” When his robber baron buddies asked him why, he said “If I don’t pay them a decent wage, they won’t be able to buy my cars.”
“Research shows raising the minimum wage would have little to no impact on employment.”
Reality has shown that statement to be complete BS
List of restaurants that have closed or moved out of California after CA mandated $20 fast food minimum wage:
Rubio’s Coastal Grill: In June 2024, Rubio’s announced the closure of 48 underperforming locations across California. The company cited the rising cost of doing business, including increased labor expenses due to the new minimum wage law, as key factors influencing these closures. Valuetainment+2California Globe+2New York Post+2
Hart House: Established by comedian Kevin Hart, Hart House was a plant-based fast-food chain with four locations in the Los Angeles area. In September 2024, the company unexpectedly shut down all its locations after operating for just two years. While the company did not publicly attribute the closures to the $20 minimum wage, the timing suggests that increased labor costs may have played a role. New York Post+1California Globe+1
Pizza Hut: Between September 2023 and January 2024, Pizza Hut experienced significant workforce reductions in California, laying off over 1,200 delivery drivers. The company indicated that these layoffs were a response to rising operational costs, which were influenced by the new minimum wage legislation. California Globe+1Valuetainment+1
Foster’s Freeze: A beloved regional chain, Foster’s Freeze closed a location near Fresno, attributing the decision to the inability to meet the increased wage requirements under the new law. New York Post+1Valuetainment+1
Beyond individual closures, the broader economic environment in California has been affected. The state has seen a 30% drop in job openings, with the unemployment rate reaching 5.3% in September 2024, the second-highest in the nation. This decline is attributed to high taxes, escalating living costs, and stringent regulations, prompting both businesses and residents to relocate to more favorable environments.
Libertarian is the correct moral and constitutional argument: no minimum wage laws or requirements. Such laws are violation of inalienable self ownership and unconstitutional interference of the right to contract. The entirety of the Galloway diatribe is completely irrelevant, and mostly bullshit anyway.
“Research shows raising the minimum wage would have little to no impact on employment.”
Reality has shown that statement to be complete BS
The implementation of a $20 minimum wage for fast-food workers in California has led to significant changes in the state’s fast-food industry.
Between June 2023 and June 2024, approximately 10,700 fast-food jobs were lost, marking the worst performance year outside of a recession and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Additionally, research indicates that between September 2023 and June 2024, 6,166 fast-food jobs were lost.
These job losses have been attributed to increased labor costs leading to higher consumer prices and a reduction in the number of operating hours
It is unfortunate that wisdom, common sense, and kindness makes someone an outlier. Fortunately, one person can bring societal change when others act.
Bravo! Terrific post and very simple, straightforward initiative that Washington needs to rally around. It’s the right thing to do but too many will find excuses. We need strong leaders like Prof G to sponsor and sell this to close.
Doesn’t raising the minimum wage effectively increases the inequality between those who have an income, and those who don’t?
Around 10 years ago, the province of Ontario significantly increased
the minimum wage, and since then there has in fact been massive inflation, especially in regards to rent. As many have paraphrased Churchill, capitalism is the worst system… except for all the others
Also I have to say I don’t love how quickly. In bloodlestly, Scott is willing to condemn small businesses to oblivion as a result of thelis proposed tripling of wages. Why is a dog eat dog system
OK for entrepreneurs, while socialist welfare for employees (funded by those entrepreneurs)? It’s one thing to distinguish between multi gazillionaire CEO’s and their employees. I think some compassionate should be shown to small business operators as well
Carrots and sticks?
Scott, you mention some public companies where average wages look paltry vs. stock repurchase activity. Are there currently any mechanisms in place from the federal level where the federal government can say “you need to pay an average/median of XX/year in wages per employee” before allowing for repurchase activity (I am not familiar with any)? Or are there certain tax incentives (aside from higher wages lowering pre-tax income) the federal government can or has offered to spur greater wage investment?
Thank you.
Hats off to you Scott. I sincerely hope many other business leaders follow your example. Keep doing what you’re doing and keep letting people know!
GALLOWAY FOR PRESIDENT !!!
Just a huge and sincere thank you, Prof G, for the economic analysis and the unwavering moral clarity.
This episode is brilliant.
For too long, the Trump Administration has successfully used its ‘Flood The Zone’ strategy to create confusion and disarray in the opposition. With “Project 2028′, you have created a lens to help people see a better alternative and unity behind it. Your idea also allows people to understand the damage Trump is doing by the undemocratic and unpopular actions that come directly from ‘Project 2025. Next, this approach creates a space for a conversation where people can discuss and get behind a clear alternative.
In addition to Housing and Minimum Wage, my ‘Project 2028’ would find ways to limit or overturn Citizens United. What’s your ‘Project 2028’? What would Amy Klobuchar’s or Pete Buttigieg’s planks be? I’d love to hear them interviewed about their vision.
Well done on your challenge at the end. Let’s hope it gets more attention like Buffett’s ‘Giving Pledge’.
Let’s be blunt. Union were always weak. A group of benevolent, peaceful workers stand no chance against naked greed. Unions became powerful once the mob got involved and break bones if needed to get their point. Power only respect power.
Like the Dallas Ford plant, which the UAW organizers kept getting roughed up. It took New Orleans mob boss Carlos Marcello to send his boys down there and take care of Ford’s goons to get unionized.
You want Walmart, Amazon and other exploitive mega corps to provide better pay and benefits?. Unionize, but when the mega corps send in their anti-union team, they end up in the hospital or have to spend so much money on security that is better to do a union contract. Is a cost driven decision.
The great thing I see with the OrangeTurd Kleptocracy is that double green lights are flashing for corruption at every level. I trust that every organized crime entity will be looking at opportunities.
I worked in the union movement for a majority of my working life and must agree that it is now incapable of providing the needed balance in the workplace. The federal government must play the role of protecting the interests of ordinary working people against the greedy, predatory actions of the elite individuals who have acquired massive fortunes and exercise enormous power not only over our economy, but the entire society.
I wish I had worked in your company. I hope my grandkids could work in a company like yours, Scott. Thank you for caring❣️
None of this stuff happened overnight. How did successive US administrations manage to supervise this decline? I am not American, but I have strong ties. Your altruism is just so spectacularly uncommon! I am struggling to believe that a sufficient number of the bro’s and mso’s in your position are going to suddenly get a conscience and start pulling people up. I’m also curious, so here’s an idea. Perhaps you could share more insight into how you approach your altruism. Doing so could actually have an impact. For example: how many of those types of decisions do you make instinctively? What is your calculus, for instance, when overpaying someone based on prevailing rates? Do you have an informal or even a formal policy that applies across the board, and or to selective bonuses, or gifts. Do you also use performance incentives? Sharing this kind of detail could provide a basic template that I believe others may find easier to adopt and adapt instead of having to figure out an approach on their own. Your reference point would also make it easier to sell to shareholders. Just a thought…
By 2028 we’ll be in a depression – not because “I hate Trump, so bad things will happen”, but because Ai really is going to eliminate a lot of jobs without creating replacements. Trump will grab the obvious economic solutions – e.g. those used during Covid. Dems need to leapfrog to the real solution – a Universal Basic Income. Propose it seriously in 2026, let the voters laugh at them – and by 2028 when the economy is even worse, the voters will be ready. Paying for it the same way we now create money in the Fed – i.e. create it out of thin air and deposit it (digitally) into everyone’s UBI debit account. Then the problem is how to suck it back out of the economy to prevent inflation. Easily solved via “demurrage” – basically continuously destroying a small fraction of all existing money, by recalculating the amount remaining in any such accounts every time the balance is checked, such as when doing a payment or deposit, and recording the new balance along with a timestamp for the next time the balance is checked and recalculated. Technically it could be done with a global digital cryptocurrency, but I doubt anyone will be that far-sighted.
Tom –
So you are proposing to erode the value of savings for the wave of baby boomers that have just hit retirement, essentially assessing them a savings tax. That is not going to be politically viable. Erosion of their purchasing power via inflation is more politically tenable.
AI is coming, and it’s going to throw millions of people out of work. Government and industry is going to have to adjust its calculus. There’s no way around it. You can’t toss millions of people out of work, with very little prospect for reemployment and expect that everybody will carry on like nothing happened.
Two further thoughts to work into your comments:
1. Labor – You could achieve a lot with your financial targets and advocacy of labor if labor stop resisting any form of real accountability. If they became the partner of ensuring high quality, customer-driven performance, then a lot of this conversation goes away. There is not a union, aside from the ones that cover electrical line workers, that is on board with this. It feels like 90% of their time is spent on the 10% of workers everyone knows should be fired.
2. CEOs can uniquely change a company’s trajectory from bad to great. They should be rewarded. However, in the majority of times where they do not, they should not benefit from the enormous exit packages they benefit from.
Why aren’t there more people like you?
~1% of workers make at or lower than federal minimum wage. focusing on the the minimum wage is pretty ineffective. Instead, focus on raising the marginal productivity of working class. One easy solution: cut off low wage immigration pipeline: supply and demand. That will boost working class wages over time. But of course, the so called workers party wants the precise opposite: open borders.
You really do too many edibles. Who is hiring a high school kid who knows nothing for $25 an hour? And as always as a good little Democrat you ignore the disaster of the immigration invasion Yeah, that doesn’t depress wage rates for lower income workers (are you paying your maid, lawn man and pool boy your $50 an hour cause I know you aren’t doing those things yourself) Yeah, 20 million new people live in tents, right? They don’t live in rental units squeezing the supply so rents end up skyrocketing. You live in a egg head drug induces dream world. Try reality once in a while. You might be shocked to find closing the border and modestly reducing the illegals that are here will result in some housing deflation—shocker to all Democrats. And you might find a labor squeeze at the low end forces wages to rise for those who need it most.
Canadian here. Follower
Everyone I read or listen too (pivot among others) seems to be waiting for the next election cycle to effect change. Is this a good idea?
Part 2…
Looking to the future, those that apply themselves have a better chance of living the American Dream than at any time in history. The fact that there is such extreme income potential is sign of extreme opportunity for those that work hard and learn the right skills. In other words, it’s a good sign.
And lastly, these minimum wage jobs are starter jobs for people living with their families. Your not supposed to be an adult with a family earning minimum wage. And most statistics don’t take into account those earning minimum wage plus tips, or students, etc. When you remove those people you are not left with a very large group. And if you are one of those people than you likely weren’t paying attention or applying yourselves in your formative years. Personal responsibility matters. We don’t want a nation of people “entitled”, living off those that did the hard work.
Economics 101: Minimum wage has a cost. What should be debated is if the cost is worth it. It’s not. All price fixing is bad as it misallocates resources. In this case, it means less jobs, higher prices (more inflation) and or lost business to competitors that don’t have such restraints (we live in a multi-national world).
You want to help people- help them get the skills that enable them to add more value to society and themselves.
How can someone so smart and so well intentioned get the minimum wage argument so wrong? Ideology I suppose.
There is a trade off between jobs and wage. The higher the price the less demand. Just like the price of most goods, we purchase less when the price is raised or more when its lowered. Therefore, one must be cognizant of the “cost” of a minimum wage or the cost of raising it.
Taking this to its logical extreme why not make minimum wage $100 an hour? Everybody who had a job would be able to support a family except almost no one would be employed.
Raising the minimum wage also changes the economic dynamics of automation (cost/ benefit analysis). In other words, processes previously accomplished through labor now can be done more efficiently through automation. Sadly, this leads to even higher unemployment of the very people that the minimum wage laws were intended to help. Destroying access to starter jobs is akin to removing the lower rungs of a ladder making it that much more difficult to begin the climb to a better life.
We live in a knowledge based economy where access to knowledge is both free and virtually limitless. The right knowledge and skills are enabling. Today, a lower class citizen with an Internet connection has access to more information than the president of the U.S. did 20 years ago.
Sounds like the comments came from someone who never started or ran a business because they only have a theoretical solution. From the founding of America until today, what period of time were the problems solved by an arbitrary and capricious increase in the minimum wage? Zero/None. How does an increase in the minimum wage create affordable housing? Some people think all of this comes out of thin air instead of it being part of the price of the product. I bet the professor cannot tell us where a job comes from; who creates a job and where does the money come from to create it. Try running a business and you will be looking to eat your hat.
He does run a business, and he’s founded and sold several. Or did you not read to the end?
OG fan here. I’m on a school board. Every thing you say about inequality in magnified in K-12. Outcomes are crushed for way too many kids (regardless of race) because of chaos at home that is more often than not rooted in poverty.
I’d ask you have your team weave this very significant issue into your critically important work.
We need bright brilliant brains in government
We need bright brilliant brains in office !!! You should consider a run for senate
Run for office please! We need bright brilliant brains in office !!!
All true. Why give it away in welfare when you can pay a living wage and provide some dignity as well.
I agree with you.I live in Tennessee and the state legislature has a lot to learn here.
Thank you, Scott, for caring about and advocating for the middle and lower classes. When they succeed, we all succeed!
Clearly you are a marketing guy Scott. If memory serves me right you did well on the sale of L2. All the other businesses well not so much. For every report that says unemployment will not increase if the minimum wage increases I can find a report that says unemployment will increase. How bout we skip the easy way out (raise minimum wage) and focus on the real problem…..Horrible public education system. (BTW, the answer to that item is not more money. See, your comment re: corrupt unions.)
I regret never have taken your class. Although I do admit being more angry after reading your essays
With respect
Warren
All true, and especially about people not being able to pay to take care of their health and the cascading consequences of that. I live in an area where the influx of 1percenters makes it harder for middle class people to afford housing and dining out. Such a skewed economy isn’t a benevolent or even neutral economy.
I love the post and how you dig into the fact that the working people are getting screwed. As a member of NYC electrical union I was also able to earn a decent blue collar living and support my family. Without the union there would have been no insurance no retirement no continuing education, you get the picture. Not all unions are corrupt and abusive.
Scott can pay better than average wages, but he probably employs only 1 or 2 people in a media company that’s a sideline to his academic career. They’re probably working very hard if he’s juggling two careers himself, but he still has to have the money coming in.
California has had a few businesses pull out because of a higher minimum wage, and that’s likely to go up after the wildfires. Maybe businesses which have suffered from the fires will go elsewhere or just fold. Those that stay will hire fewer people.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s an entry level job like fast food cashier or a college-level job like editing for a web publication. If salaries rise faster than revenues, or worse yet rise enough to start the red ink flowing, people get laid off.
I’d rather have more people employed than a few survivors rich.
Brilliant, simply brilliant. The fact that oligarchs and wannabe oligarchs can’t/ won’t see this is simply a function of greed. Thank you for your combination of logic and decency.
“The pursuit of happiness” is not about the mere pursuit – it is about possessing happiness – the founders saw it as a right to own some happiness. They borrowed from Locke. What do we think the people would do with the additional wages? Burn it in the back yard? Make a pile of it and let their dog run through it? I bet they would spend it ( hopefully save a bit too) – which might be helpful for a service / consumption based economy. Finally – would rather pay someone extra dollars for their labor, or have the gov’t spend $3 ( a guess) in taxes to deliver $1 in services to those that don’t earn enough. We can figure out how to do this ( see James Webb telescope) without blowing up our local, regional and national markets.
The Communist answer is to mandate a $25 minimum wage, regardless of the person’s skill or work ethic, mandate $25. That will solve everything.
The Capitalist solution is to eliminate federal income taxes on anyone making under $150K
Can you imagine a world where people could actually keep that income that they generate?
Can you imagine what that would do to the economy?
Communist solutions will always fail and suck ass
How would you make up the lost revenue from eliminating federal income taxes for those making $150k or less? If your answer is to tax the top 1% more so they pay their fair share and make up the difference, then I could be on board. Otherwise, you are blowing a massive hole in the deficit and cutting necessary programs to make up the difference would just make it worse. More homeless people, people who can’t see a doctor, people who can’t feed their kids while the wealthiest have more money than they can spend in several lifetimes. What do you think that would do to society?
Also, I need to say that a minimum wage isn’t communism. Communism is when workers own the means of production, which is clearly not the case in the US and not what Scott is proposing here. Capital owns the means of production here, as it always has, and we have had a minimum wage for decades. We are still a capitalist country. If we’re going to have an adult conversation about which policies lead to the best outcomes for the most people, we have to be clear about what words mean.
The thought of such inequality makes me furious, as it should everyone. Just because you didn’t go to college and work in the service industry or even a low level office job doesn’t give these companies the right to treat people as expendable. And to argue as another commentator has that those above will feel resentment and also demand higher wages, two things. First, it sounds to me like a lot of these large corporations could afford to do so and second, you are assuming the worst in people. If I were a mid level manager making what I felt like was a fair salary wouldn’t I want my company to increase the wages of those below me? Less turnover, higher productivity, and a more harmonious workplace environment would all sound pretty good to me. Our system and country is broken and it needs progressive thinking and ACTION along the lines of Scott’s to bring us back to a working for all society. We have an duty and obligation as fellow humans to look out for one another not profit off of people’s misfortune. We shouldn’t be pulling up the ladder to success behind us.
To make matters more infuriating, I know someone with a masters degree who fell very ill and was out of work during peak earning years. Ensuing crushing debt left her using retirement funds (not a good idea) to pay off some of it. She now works for an hourly wage and no benefits. She faces dire older years. There’s a very fine line between an average life and a dip toward homelessness for too many, most of whom likely worked hard and encountered misfortune. Why do we allow it? (And now this Administration will find ways to undermine earned entitlement programs–watch for it.)
Boosting the minimum wage may be a good idea, but not now. We are going into a recession and an increased minimum wage would result in small businesses closing.
“Research shows raising the minimum wage would have little to no impact on employment.”
Reality has shown that statement to be BS
Look at what happened to California
California increased fast food workers minimum wage to $20
Immediately you saw layoffs, hours reduced, and human beings being replaced by kiosks.
So that statement is complete BS
This is such a simplistic viewpoint. Whatever you think a worker needs for a living wage is vastly understated if you are planning to increase the minimum wage to $25 which would be massively inflationary. It is almost like Scott does not remember the spiral of wage-based inflation from the 1970’s where COLA adjustment provisions in union contracts drove wages higher which drove prices higher which drove wages higher, etc. And it is simplistic to think that you can force the minimum wage up to $25 without then having to pay all of the more senior / skilled / experienced workers meaningfully more than the lowest wage workers. While Scott may think that workers want to live in a socialist utopia, they do not. Those who bring much more value to a role expect to be paid meaningfully more and will resent it if they are not. So the cost to a business of an increase in the minimum wages impacts the entire pay scale, not just those at the bottom. I think that Scott is very bright and usually agree with his perspectives, but he is really off the mark with these views regarding the minimum wage.
Mike’s comment about workers may want to live in a socialist utopia but they do not, wow! How do you know Mike? Are you omniscient like Trump/Elon ?Read about the happiest countries in the world, you will call them socialistic and see where the United States ranks. BTW these countries are secular but follow the teachings of Mathew more than the US dystopia.
David – I understand this dynamic since I have a business and have to set wages for staff. The observation is based on feedback directly from staff who want to know that their effort / performance that is clearly above peers is being recognized and rewarded.
I couldn’t agree more. Hopefully I will join your pledge to compensate people the way you suggested.
Thank you for the idea and your commitment to improve people’s life
We traded well paying manufacturing jobs for poorly paying service jobs. Thanks, NAFTA. Everyone should have listened to Ross Perot and not elected Bill Clinton.
Yeah yeah yeah…Do we have a minimum wage problem or do we have a problem not creating enough jobs that pay more than the minimum wage? The solution is not mandating wages. The solution is more productive economic policy..
I love this. I would also add “Retirement Security”. This includes but is not exclusive to Social Security and Medicare. Wages are important but programs that educate and facilitate early saving and retirement wealth could be created.
Your post needs to be adopted in full as a principal position paper of the Democratic Party. I am so done with democrats “moderating” their positions to appeal to “both sides”. All that has achieved is ongoing derision from the right and hopelessness from the left. The Democratic Party needs to get some balls and speak what they know to be the truth-then the people will follow.
Great article! I’m curious about your thoughts on profit-sharing or equity sharing as alternatives to solely raising hourly wages. Given the success of equity in places like Silicon Valley, could offering a similar incentive, perhaps with tax benefits, more rapidly align employer and employee interests? For most businesses, where maximizing profit is the goal, wouldn’t this be a faster way to bridge the wealth gap than state-by-state minimum wage adjustments? What are your perspectives on incentivizing profit-sharing through the IRS?
Excellent post . Much better than your misguided post on Europe and Ukraine.
My sentiments exactly. What a country it would be.
Is 100.00 and hour a reasonable minimum wage?
I guess you didn’t read the piece. He said $25/hour was a reasonable minimum wage.
Agreed.
What do people who are paid do?
They spend.
Huh.
Dems so profoundly misread the zeitgeist and still only list by a couple million votes.
Added three generations of economic injury to the insult of adopting joyful cool auntie and the coach as their theme puppets.
They gotta be permanently skewered.
And left behind.
New people, People!
M
NOLA
Where is the Project 2028 merch? Are your looking to make this “movement” something that all us can can support financially? Max wage firm. Now I know why Ed always laughs at your jokes!!