>

Nah. Many executives dont get rich from salaries. They get bonuses and equity. It's why several famous CEOs get paid a dollar a year. Options are great for tax purposes - so.... Leave it to rich people to find loopholes
Meanwhile, Pennsylvania continues to tell workers to go fuck themselves with a $7.25 minimum wage that hasn't changed in almost 20 years. >

How many places actually get away with it though? Most fast food chains I see in the Allentown area are at least 13-15. Warehouse is averagely 20, was about 16 before all this covid crap. I'll admit it would still be awesome if they'd actually stop ignoring that time has not stop and the world does keep spinning and money keeps inflating. >

That was my thought, federal can be whatever it wants but around my area I don't see anything below 14-15 from gas stations to fast food. >

I get what you're saying, but if the federal gets brought up to say $15, suddenly a lot of places are barely paying minimum wage and the incentive to work there goes down and they will need to increase. >

I'm not arguing but I am genuinely curious, has it been shown in the past with previous federal minimum wage increases that it lowers incentive to work? >

I'm not saying it lowers incentive to work, I'm saying that it lowers the incentive to stay at a place if the only reason for being there was that they paid more than minimum wage.
I should have been more clear in my original post. >

So workers have a better negotiating position and leverage that into raises. What's the problem? >

Wow. It only took 30 years of exponential ceo wage growth. >

New federal law for minimum wage: it must be be set a ratio of the highest payout of the company of the company.
So, for example of the CEO makes 1,000,000 per year, and the ratio is set to 1:30, then high school cashier needs to be paid 33,333 per year (which is about $16). Also adjusted for this employees entire package (like stocks and bonuses). Probably some loophole I'm not seeing, so plug that too.
Then just set another bare minimum limit to keep wages from falling too far at smaller companies so they don't end up being paid like 0.04 an hour. If the local mom and pop only makes 500,000 in sales a year, the owner is only gonna bring home, what, 100,000? After 1:30 it works out to like 1.06 an hour which is obviously too low. And automatically adjust this low end for inflation every year. Maybe say 10.
As a bonus make the low end also account for locality as another comment suggested so bum fuck Montana and Manhattan aren't the same minimum because cost of living ain't the same on both places.
This caps the low end at something liveable, but forces widely profitable and massive companies to actually pay the workers who made it happen a fair portion of that profit.
But that's just a dumb idea. Trickle down is clearly superior. Look at how successful it's made companies! >

Won’t matter much, companies will start to slash hours and blame inflation for low sales/business. They will always find a way to balance out your pay no matter how much of a “raise” you get.