comment: >
  
  Wouldn’t have to worry about wage increases if we stopped voting for people who support the feds endless printing and our representatives reckless spending. Over a third of all dollars were created in the past 5 years. I don’t think people actually understand how much damage it does when they just print money out of thin air and never have to pay it back, must be nice to live that way.
context: The main reason it passed last time was Democrats conceding to tax cuts being passed with it. It was also added to a military spending bill, to make sure no one would vote against it.
  Democrats would have to win a super majority or concede to something huge to get it passed now. >
  
  The republicans moved right and the Dems moved along with them because compromise is what Dems value most. >
  
  The Dems have not, by any metric, moved rightward since the end of third way politics in the Clinton administration. >
  
  Obama bailed out the banks and prosecuted no one. His healthcare plan was Romneycare who, as you may know, is a Republican. Saudi Arabia has consistently been the US biggest customer in buying weapons. A weapon purchased from the US blew up a school bus in Yemen killing 40 children. Fracking continues apace. Obama issued an apology for bombing a hospital in Afghanistan. Kids remain in cages. Biden appointed Rahm Emmanuel as ambassador to Japan who covered up a murder. The democratic mayor of Atlanta wants to build a police city on 85 acres of forest for 95 million dollars. Eric Adams former cop is the democratic mayor of NYC. Should I keep going?
  Nothing on climate change. No green new deal. Caving to mansion. Cuomo appointed conservative judges which cost the Dems the house. And so on. >
  
  
  Nothing on climate change.
  
  Are you seriously suggesting that the climate provisions in the bipartisan infrastructure bill and in the IRA was nothing? How could any policy-minded person seriously think that? >
  
  Yeah. It’s revolutionary. We’re all set. Thank god. I was worried. >
  
  Don’t move the goal posts. You said they have done nothing on climate change. Clearly that isn’t true, right? Unless your definition of nothing is anything short of revolutionary. >
  
  By nothing I mean the liberal performative bull shit and corporate giveaways that Dems love. 
  But you know. Keep defending that stuff. It’s really working. Everything is gonna be fine. >
  
  I’m sorry, but you just have a very poor understanding of what climate legislation passed last congress if your takeaway is that it’s liberal performative bullshit. It’s conservatively estimated to shave off an additional 10% of GHG emissions from 2005 levels this decade. That puts the US in striking distances of the Biden administration’s target to cut GHG emissions 50% by 2030. And that’s before considering further state action and additional statutory authority provided to the EPA to regulate emissions reductions. For example, the IRA created a methane pricing program that will assess a fee per metric ton of methane emissions. That programs is targeted in scope and likely to expand, but it’s a pretty big deal and certainly not performative or a giveaway. The IRA also amended the Clean Air Act in response to West Virginia v EPA to explicitly give the EPA statutory authority to regulate GHG emissions as air pollutants. This gives them broad power to regulate the decarbonization of the economy - another huge deal. These are just two examples of many. >
  
  Thank you! The perfect example of what democrats love! 
  Nibbling around the corners, quoting meaningless statistics and pushing out when real change will happen to 2030. And claiming victory. 
  It’s the perfect distillation of liberalism. It is performative. It will not solve climate change. 
  We both know it. 
  If we both live another thirty years, let’s reconnect and see what this law that you’re so proud of accomplished. I’ll be almost 90 but if I am alive and floating near you clinging to a bit of flotsam where manhattan used to be, we can revisit. >
  
  The last minimum wage increase phased in over three years, ending in 2009. Democrats lost the House in the 2010 election and didn’t get a trifecta back until 2021. The GOP won’t increase minimum wage. 
  The Fight for $15 movement started in 2012 and achieved notable success in getting states to increase the minimum wage. 
  Covid caused a big shift in the labor market. Workforce participation has gone down and megacorps like Amazon have a virtually unlimited need for labor, so what they offer has increasingly become a defacto minimum wage. >
  
  
  The Fight for $15 movement started in 2012 and achieved notable success in getting states to increase the minimum wage.
  
  saw a joke a few years ago, went something like, "by the time Fight for $15 is accomplished we'll need a $25 minimum wage" >
  
  That’s funny because it’s turned out to be entirely accurate. The states that haven’t increased aren’t going to and it’s going to be a long time until there’s a Democratic trifecta at the federal level again. 
  Meanwhile, getting and retaining employees means that Target is now starting at $25 an hour and healthcare eligibility at 25 hours a week nationwide. A lot of people retired, upskilled, or got disabled during Covid. >
  
  
  Target is now starting at $25 an hour      
  
  Quit quoting corporate PR bullshit. Like all corporations, Target has different starting pay depending on what the de facto minimum is for the immediate labor market. They overwhelming majority of their stores still start at $16.25 or less. According to Target employees there are something like 5-7 stores in places like LA and NYC that pay that much, and that’s it. >
  
  Probably not much pressure on the representatives to change it. It doesn't apply at all to most states because the state minimum wage is higher. And of the states where it does apply the vast majority of voters will be far from the wage level where an increase of the absolute floor will be felt.
  So weak pressure from that direction. Some counteracting pressure to keep it low from those who struggle to enter the workforce. And massive pressure from businesses who want to keep it low. >
  
  What happened is that blue states figured out that they can just raise minimum wage on their own; they don't need the federal government to do so.  I don't know if there was a specific catalyst, but before ~2000, states didn't tend to set their own minimum wage.  Now they do.
  And now that we have blue states setting their minimum wage to whatever they want, there's really no pressure to set the national minimum wage any higher.  Californians already have their $15/hr, they're not going to start protests to get Georgians $15/hr too. >
  
  Personally, I think it makes more sense to do it this way anyhow.  A minimum wage in CA isn't going to be as appropriate in some lower COL state.  Adjusting it at a federal level means the fed needs to choose from a selection of options that won't all be universally good. >
  
  I mean you could set it based on locality
  Basically create a gradient minimum wage that shifts and changes with local economic conditions at the local level, but does so automatically or by process that's out of the hands of politicians to stall up by just never voting on it. >
  
  I think setting that at the federal level would be pretty complicated.  What might be easier is to standardize (at the federal level) what minimum wage is actually SUPPOSED to do, and let states determine what it should be.  
  That might be easier for the fed to audit. >
  
  I mean maybe but that implies the states could be trusted to throw a pizza party for themselves if a fed told them to do it.
  It's not that hard, you just define an open source formula with which to define the local minimum wage.  The hardest part there is settling on a definition of "local."  For how much, within "local" enough that the average rent is at most 40% of your monthly income pre-tax. >
  
  Add in that people actually making minimum wage in this country is pretty minimal. 1.4% of all workers make minimum wage and the demographics of those earners are like half being sub 18 years old. 2/3 of all hourly min wage workers are also tipped workers (see: not making minimum wage). 
  There's just no political pressure to raise a minimum wage because virtually no one is making the true minimum wage. The labor market basically has taken care of that on its own. >
  
  Question: would raising the minimum wage not help those making barely above minimum? For example, in my state minimum went up to $13, as I was making a little above that they adjusted my wage (let’s say for the sake of this, if I was making $13.50 they bumped me up to $14.50), or is this not common place? >
  
  Yes. It absolutely would affect many more non- minimum wage jobs because wages are always relative. If you could work a really demanding job for $10/ hour or a more reasonable job for $8/ hour, many people would take the latter. 
  Raise the minimum wage to $15/ hour, and just like that the demanding job must also raise its wages. Replace "demanding" with any other prerequisite (like, requires odd hours, experience with kids, Excel, etc.) and the minimum wage will have upward pressure on wages that require more, relative to minimum wage jobs. >
  
  I don't think that there is much pressure to increase the minimum wage, because most people are not working anywhere near the minimum wage. The federal minimum wage limit is kind of irrelevant right now. The unemployment rate is so low, that companies need to fight over the "low skill" workers with money. 
  If you are already making $20 an hour, do you care if the federal minimum wage is $7 or $15? As long as unemployment is low, and wages of the low end are relatively high, I don't expect the federal minimum wage to really mean much to anyone. I think the people most invested in increasing the federal minimum wage are people absolutely nowhere near the federal minimum wage, and who are more interested in the subject out of a sense of principle, than personal need. >
  
  Though for example let's say I was making 14 an hour and let's say  min wage was 12. If the min got raised to 14 I would pressure my employer to now pay 16. This does not always happen, but min wage impacts a lot of people's potential pay >
  
  Conservatives believe minimum wage jobs are only for teenagers or lazy losers, that raising wages will make prices go up, and that in a free market the government shouldn't tell businesses what yo pay their people. 
  Democrats have not had a large enough majority to do something about it since 1979. >
  
  The internet has made it easier tricking dumbasses  that tax cuts for the rich and the status quo will benefit their lives more than if they had those tax cuts or their wages changed (point in case how the trump tax cuts phase out 😂) >
  
  If we were to hypothetically remove all taxes from the rich and wealthy so as to take away anything they would actually have as a political platform, they would begin rallying to be paid tax tributes for being rich -- and if we were to hypothetically grant negative tax tributes to the rich, they would not be satisfied until all the money everywhere, always, was only theirs.  And, if all money was only theirs, then they would demand that all work be unpaid.  And, if all work were hypothetically unpaid, then they would demand that everyone simply be a permanent slave.  And, if everyone were permanent slaves, they would demand to no longer have to pay for the expenses of maintaining and feeding the slaves.  Since they could not possibly have workers that were unfed, they would demand to dispose of all workers in favor of robots.  The robots would get no wage, and be charged for the energy they used, collected in the form of more work.
  The moral of the story is, there is no end to greed. >
  
  Citizens-f***ing-United. Recognizing corporations as people and money as speech basically guarantees that corporations and their paid cronies will obstruct any attempt to raise wages on a federal level. >
  
  And for the millionth time that case did neither of those things. Corporate personhood goes back to the 1600s and joint stock companies sponsoring trade expeditions. It didn't say money is the same as speech, but it did say that money facilitates speech, and that putting a cap on money you spend to facilitates speech is just another way of limiting speech.
  How much could you get your message out if you tje government banned you from buying ads on the radio or online, or any of the other ways money is used to spread a message.
  Imagine if the Youtube algorithm dictated what speech you could be exposed to. Sure the video isn't being taken down, but its harder to find. That's not per se being censored, your metaphorical newspaper press (computer) isn't being confiscated and destroyed, but you would be really stupid to say there is no suppression of speech from Youtube.
  That's viewpoint discrimination, and the government isn't allowed to do that, at all, as that would violate freedom of speech, because its a negative right.
  Alternatives to Youtube do exist, they might not be great, but good luck trying to run from the government.
  Edit: Look at this way. I have money I want to use for free speech to support candidate X. I have friends who feel the same way. We all donate 100 dollars into a fund. And, to make sure that things stay fair, we setup a corporation to control that fund with bylaws to make sure one person doesn't take the money and run, we all collectively vote on what to do with it. 
  So, why would we lose the free speech rights and be barred from spending money to on speech to help a candidate simply because we formed a corporation? >
  
  Ok, so rich people have more freedom of speech than poor people?
  Did I get that right? >
  
  No. Same freedom, just a different capacity for projecting that speech >
  
  Sounds like 
  
  both Usain Bolt and man driving a Maserati are competitors in the race. >
  
  Democrats since Bill Clinton have become
  Incredibly gunshy about market interventions that don’t directly benefit capital. Republicans have regressed fully to pre depression economic policy. Further our economy is almost fully finaicilized with the only real growth happening in cutting costs. On the social front every major network is millionaires carrying water for their billionaire owners. >
  
  Who was it who observed the RW media is a bunch of millionaires working for billionaires by telling thousand-aires the hundred-aires are coming to take their money? >
  
  I dunno, but they said it perfectly. >
  
  Not quite, but thanks a thousand for the film clip. I think it was on a TED talk but (on the other end of the EMS) could've been Bill Mahr. Tried to find it on TED, but the millionaires must've blocked it. >
  
  States can raise it locally if they want to, no reason to have a fed one at all actually. >
  
  I mean you can keep going with that argument. What’s the basis for the federal government passing any federal laws? Why are NY and FL not separate countries? (Or are you just auditioning for a SCOTUS seat lmao?) they’re more than different enough to be separate countries. Why have a Union in the first place?
  I don’t see a thoughtful basis for what you’re saying. “It’s not necessary.” Great - but why is that in your opinion? The minimum wage has objectively increased the standing of the middle class, bringing more wealth and more power to them. There have been little to no negative effects for businesses paying a meager $7.25 an hour - that’s extremely low in ANY state. If your business can’t support that, then maybe it shouldn’t be a business. 
  Are you against the idea of uplifting workers specifically or do you just find yourself to be anti federalist? >
  
  It’s beneficial to have greater representational power in deciding the laws that influence you.  A state minimum wage allows me to vote for a minimum wage that makes sense given the cost of living in my state and a local minimum wage for a city does that even better.
  There are many benefits of a federal govt like creating laws regarding interstate disputes, national defense, interstate infrastructure but there’s no need for a federal minimum wage.  And it’s bad to have unnecessary laws at the federal level because it costs money to administer, it gives people who live far away from you more control over your life, and companies like to have a single set of law makers to lobby in order to create regulatory capture (controlling a market by creating regulations that keep out competition).
  There’s a reason Amazon is pushing for a $15 federal minimum wage.  It wants to push out competition who can’t afford that while starting off. >
  
  The short answer is that half the body politic of America went completely insane. Republicans, as a National party, have largely rejected the notion that Governance is the purpose of Government, and instead view it purely as a vehicle to gain, maintain, and utilize power over other people. They justify refusals to increase the federal minimum wage with insistences that it’ll cause inflation, when really it’ll benefit and improve the lives of the poorest Americans, because if it improves the lives of poor Americans, it could enable some to leave poverty behind, thus depraving Republicans and the economically well off of labor, and thus, power.
  Throw in that the last three presidents have been two Democrats and Donald Trump, and Republicans have had no desire or design to enable the function of Government in any way, shape, or form. >
  
  Donald Trump’s anti-immigration stance effectively reducing labor competition paired with pro-tax-cut stance was basically the single largest one-two combo in increasing take home pay for US workers in most of their lifetimes.  Hence the reason that rich capitalists in both parties sought to drive him out of office. >
  
  What they leave out is repealing the Reagan taxscam, i.e., removing the incentive for those who divide the profits to just keep it all for themselves and give the workers NOTHING. There is no need to increase prices to support the higher wages because the wages translate into greater sales which are made with goods produced at higher quantities with the same Capital which means LOWER unit prices. When that higher demand exceeds current physical capacity, new and more efficient productive facilities are created with a totally separate part of Corporate finances - the Capital Budget - and have no impact on the Operating Budget which include the cost of labor and upkeep of existing capital resources.
  GOPers survive because so few of their lemmings understand the actual workings of their employers' finances and accept fairytales about how Affirmative Action and Immigrants are WHY said lemmings haven't gotten a real wage increase since the late 70's and will NEVER get as far as their fathers got in their careers. >
  
  The political reason would probably be the wage that is being asked for. 
  1981 to 1991 it went up from $3.35 to $4.25 almost $1. 
  1997 to 2007 it went from $5.15 to $7.25 about $2. 
  The recent pushes to increase the MW have been to set it at $10.10 $11, $15. At best it is a $3 raise at worst it is doubling the MW. The larger the increase the harder it becomes to achieve. Yes there are different timeframes for when the MW would hit that target. 
  The CBO projecting job loss and lower income as a result of the increase does not help. Even if other data after MW increases says the opposite. 
  Has raising the MW ever been a politically easy thing to do? >
  
  America has, for the last thirty years , been dragged so far rightward that it's hardly recognizable. >
  
  Why should we arbitrarily set a monetary value per hour that a person must provide an employer in order to participate in the workplace?
  Some people don't have any work experience, education, useful skill and lack the self discipline and work ethic to even be worth the current minimum wage. They should be allowed to start somewhere though. The minimum wage just punishes them. >
  
  With unemployment as low as it is, I think the argument that the minimum wage currently serves as a form of federal collective bargaining for those individuals to get compensated more for their labor than they are "worth". I don't think the economy right now currently needs people making $5 an hour just so they can get employed. Amazon and McDonald's gladly takes anyone in for $12-$15 an hour if you have a pulse.
  For moral reasons? It's set so people have enough to live on. >
  
  Yes I'm aware of the intention of the minimum wage. The problem with regulation is it often has negative unintended consequences, such as making it illegal to employ people who aren't worth the minimum wage. >
  
  I don't think the US has ever had that problem though. Our unemployment rate is rather low compared to other countries. I also think in terms of morale, nobody is begging out there to work lower than minimum wage just to hold a position. Even college students realize unpaid internships are bullshit, for example. >
  
  The argument that few people are affected by setting a price floor on the of labor isn't great.  People should have the right to sell their own labor for any price the market can offer. If a college student sees an unpaid internship as bullshit they can find one that is paid. If they can't, perhaps they will find a 'bullshit' unpaid internship as a helpful stepping stone. >
  
  The thing is that if you start normalizing low to unpaid positions to gain experience and break into a certain industry, the only thing you're normalizing is individuals who are well off already to deal with such low compensation during that time period. It just means that the poor do not have access to those opportunities to jump on up. This is already a problem with current unpaid internships.
  In the meantime, if their internship actually paid them, if the factory down the street was at least paying them $10 an hour while learning CNC basics, etc, they can at least make ends meat while upskilling. >
  
  That's quite a slippery slope you describe. Unpaid internships have always been legal yet they are rare. Those internships will not suddenly become paid because that becomes the law. They will simply not be offered anymore.  
  If a company wants to compete for talent, they will offer interns a competitive compensation. If they don't offer a competitive compensation then they will be left with little talent that is more of a hindrance than a help. >
  
  What is a real world example outside of internships that you think that an individual could take advantage of a lower than $7.25 wage? I'm just curious what is the industry or type of person that comes to mind to you that would take advantage of a minimum wage being abolished.
  Because to be honest, as someone who had no experience in IT, it was pretty fine landing a job that paid $16 an hour years ago even if they were taking me on so I could gain experience. If that job paid $5 an hour or nothing, quite frankly I would have not gotten into IT and I'd still be washing cars for a living right now, although I'd argue that employer would try to pay me less without a minimum wage on the books. >
  
  High school students looking for summer jobs.
  Disabled people who are probably receiving disability payments but wish to supplement their income.
  People working through issues (sickness, drug addictions) who aren't able to reliably or consistently work.
  I'm not sure I follow your anecdote. You found a job that offered you well above minimum wage because they were competing for people with a skill set or showed potential and you somehow attribute that to the minimum wage? It was well above the minimum wage. 
  So few people are paid the minimum wage that it does not at all set the bar for the cost of skilled labor. If it is raised high enough that it did affect the cost of skilled labor it would be due to inflation, but it does not raise the value of compensation provided for skilled labor. >
  
  I'm sorry, this is just all not passing the smell test for me. I very much view minimum wage as a sort of protection that the government imposes so people's labor isn't inherently valued at a predatory low rate. >
  
  I think you're misunderstanding most economists. What you said only applicable in theory assuming a completely liquid labor market. This doesn't work in our current economy because our labor market is not completely liquid l. The vast majority of people have to work for a paycheck to get their basic needs met which means is no base level of subsistence that would allow for the discovery of a natural wage for a given job. >
  
  Such economists never got past their freshman courses where the focus is on THEORY - including the most absurd "condition" that there exists an Economic Man who has perfect knowledge of markets and total mobility to move about and maximize personal gain. Sorta like the Communist Man who willingly gives all they can and takes only what he needs - a total fiction used to support a fairytale to win over feeble minds while you enslave them. >
  
  I honestly think that workers, as a bloc, do not have the same voice in the US as they may have decades ago, so raising the minimum wage federally won’t be seen as an immediate issue for politicians to weigh on. Second, outside of early in Obama’s first term, there hasn’t been a huge majority of Democrats in Congress that could pass raising minimum wage federally. A lot of legislation under LBJ got passed because the democrats had a HUGE majority in Congress. These days I don’t know if we’ll see one party have a supermajority in Congress because of how divided the country is. Third, this is just a guess, but I wonder if those who believe that minimum wage should be elevated on a state by state basis (federalism) have won. Lastly, I believe if the minimum wage will be raised on a federal level, it would have to be like at $10 or $11. I just feel like $15 is a nonstarter because states where their economic situation isn’t as great won’t go for it. >
  
  Problem is raising the minimum wage needs to be coupled with a change in the tax code to remove the incentive for the ones who divide the business' profits to keep it all for themselves, which is what Reagan's taxscam did. If yu raise the wages of the bottom 90%, virtually every dime will be spent, either paying down debt or increasing consumption. Both produce an increase in demand for goods and services, which business meets with overtime, then adding more workers (service sector) or adding a shift (manufacturing sector). Since there's no increase in the business' CAPITAL (buidlings and equipment) the unit cost of production goes DOWN and total profits go UP without a price increase. those higher profits CAN be held for expanding the physical plant to satisfy the higher demand with even more efficient equipment and still lower unit costs,
  Bottom line: The reality is higher wages almost NEVER contribute to higher production UNIT costs and produce no need to raise prices.
  Consider the situation when the TMR was 91%. From 1950 to 1960, inflation averaged 2.4% while GDP increased 45.2% and wages grew by 41.1%. After the LBJ and Reagan taxscams, from 2005 to 2015 inflation averaged 2.1%/Yyr but GDP only grew 12% and wages 2.14% OVER THE ENTIRE DECADE. What changed, besides the tax code? >
  
  The fact our inflation is so high already, giving people more money would only lower the value of it. The fact it hasnt changed in so long is an achievement. >
  
  The filibuster makes it close to impossible to pass ANYTHING these days- even with a party being in the majority. >
  
  We don't need a minimum wage. Just don't be worthless. How can poverty even exist when you just get a masters degree in artificial intelligence like me. Just takes work... >
  
  Runaway inflation.  Losing more and more jobs overseas already.  The fact that most employers that can afford to pay more ARE already doing so. >
  
  2010 Citizens United ruling. Since then the government is easily persuaded monetarily by corporations to prioritize profit over people. >
  
  SMH. I'm just going to say the very obvious. The Republican party in America wants you dumb, poor, and trapped. What more do they have to do to convince you? I'd laugh except I was born here. >
  
  Very thought provoking response! Leave comments like these to r/politics >
  
  Coincidentally (or maybe less so), 13 years ago is the 2010 midterms, the point at which a majority took over the Republican Party that gave up any pretense of bipartisanship, and sought only to obstruction and hinder the federal government as much as possible. The Tea Party majority (and later the Trumpist majority) fundamentally oppose the minimum wage.
  They can't get rid of it, but they will also fight tooth and nail to prevent it from rising. >
  
  Minimum is $15 for federal jobs, but that’s not what you mean by federal minimum wage, right? >
  
  One party has a large group of supporters whom don't hold their politicians accountable and consider "sticking it to the libs" as political accomplishments even if it harms themselves in the process. The other party have made the argument to increase it for so long that there original minimum wage discussion numbers are now too low. States have taken up the issue to rectify the lack of action. The problem is the party that prevents action. In the event Democrats ever have a super majority they should tie federal minimum wage to their own salaries. The only way Republicans in Congress will pass a minimum wage increase is if they directly benefit from it. >
  
  I think it has to do with the increased power of corporations and the erosion of labor unions. Corporations have much more power to influence the political process than workers do, because they have a ton of money to throw at lobbying, etc. Unions are the traditional counterbalance to corporate power, but their numbers have been declining for decades, so the balance of power has shifted away from workers and towards corporations. So, it's not too surprising that we don't see any progress on the minimum wage front. >
  
  What states don’t have a state minimum wage? No one in Florida cares about the federal minimum wage because ours is already at $15. >
  
  Yeah and I don’t have a pension and my Blue Cross is 1100 a month so shut the F up >
  
  The only different now days is the republicans party which works for the corporations has alot more power then they used to and even made some people believe that raising minimum wage is bad. They lying cheating and even stealing now days to keep theirs seats. That my friend is the only difference and people have always been dumb enough to believe what they say. >
  
  I am by no means an expert, but I feel like wages right now are being set by the market with such low unemployment and numerous job openings. This is the way it should work in a balanced free market economy. Minimum wage is to help balance the power of employers with the needs of workers. With such low unemployment and numerous job openings, a worker can just leave and find more lucrative employment. McDonalds is starting at $14 locally because they CANT compete with limited workers at $7.25 an hour. Id say a minimum wage change is irrelevant until that balance is out of wack again. Just my opinion--Im not an economist. >
  
  The difference is that republicans don’t give a shit about the voters anymore because their voters won’t punish them, no matter what they do.  Literally >
  
  I think McDonald’s starting workers off at $15/hr makes people feel a lot less urgency. BTW, this is in Tucson, AZ, not exactly a high cost area. >
  
  
  Are there any political reasons as to why gaps in the minimum wage increases are notably becoming larger and larger nowadays?
  
  I'm pretty sure that nobody from my state is calling their senator and asking about the federal minimum wage.  My state has a statutory min wage that is twice the federal min wage, so we dont need it.  And the actual minimum wage, aka the market clearing price, is $18 or 19 here in my neighborhood.  McDs has to pay above the state min wage or they wont have anyone at all.
  There's no reason for some Senator or House member from my state to waste any political capital on a bill to raise the wage when its not necessary. >
  
  If I had to guess at a few things,
  Social media has made it much easier to distract with culture war issues and spread disinformation about the effects of raising minimum wage. 
  Add to that the complete polarization of both parties and the "revenge" politics and no matter who is in power its harder than ever to pass "for the people" bipartisan legislation...the only way to get both sides in on something is to add each little group of hold outs personal pet projects.
  If either party truly cared it would have been passed with the defense bill at the end of the yr while either party who claimed to care were in control. >
  
  You're gonna see a lot of shit about politics.
  That's all incorrect.
  The difference between the past, where things happened, and today, where they seem not to, is exactly what you're looking at as you read this.
  Honestly. The internet and all the things it has brought us is largely the only difference. They struggled and felt like they couldn't afford anything before the internet, even though a lot of them were seemingly better off than many of us are now.
  Really though, I think the only difference between then and now is our ability to just forget all that exists in my video game or my Walking Dead episode or my reddit app.
  And I really, really believe this is the only reason we aren't rioting in the streets like Europe is. I mean, we built all this, right? What's a little less money and a little more work if I can TikTok for 4 hours on the toilet when I get home from work? >
  
  Corporations have a lock on both parties and don't have to bother to hide it anymore.
  Plus we're all too polarized in our voting patterns to take the 5 minutes necessary to realize that an overwhelming majority of the population supports things like this. >
  
  Every time someone in congress proposes a bill that increases minimum wage everyone starts arguing about the dollar number. "$20"  no, "$15" no "$17"
  So long as there is a number to argue about it will be argued about and the bill will never go past debate. Instead a bill should be proposed that ties minimum wage to a certain formula. Inflation, cost of living index, and other things should be in it. A independent / semi-independent committe should be established with a clear formula for how to change federal minimum wage. They should review it every 2 years or so. 
  You guys probably have more and probably better ideas on formula and the details but in general congress should not have to debate minimum wage over and over with how inefficient it is. >
  
  Because the Republicans have gotten much shittier over the years and hell bent on making this country shitty. I really miss the days of George Bush and his goofy ass, I would even prefer a Cheney or McCain  to these conspiracy theorists and MAGA morons >
  
  I live in an Eastern European country that had a 40 year long communist era which ended in 1990. I won't be talking about US minimum wage because I don't have enough information on that but I can give you an insight how this generally works.
  The bad news is that you voted for this but I'm not saying it's the people's fault by any means. The same companies pay for your politician's campaigns that are keeping the wages low. You don't vote for someone who would raise minimum wages but for someone who's ruling the media with enormous amounts of money. That money partially comes from worker exploitation and here goes the vicious circle. Politicians who would actually do something against poverty and worker exploitation don't have enough financial support to take up the media fight. Sometimes you don't even know their names or you only know them when their reputation gets destroyed (often by misinformation). Again: with the money they make on you. 
  This is happening all over the world and it's getting worse because of the changing media consuming trends. Fake news spreads faster than ever, targeting became more precise, people stubbornly stick to favored media outlets, society is polarized on cultural aspects etc. 
  In my country the minimum wage rises every year. Sounds nice? It's not. The net minimum wage is about $2.5 per hour while groceries cost the same as in the US. (I have relatives in IL, we often compare the prices. Housing is cheaper though.) And the majority of my fellow citizens still vote for this. I don't blame them for not knowing better but I think this is outrageous. Modern politics is toxic. >
  
  The minimum wage is zero regardless of what a law says.  If the government prohibits people from selling their labor for below what their skills can justify in the market.... it effectively makes it illegal to employ them.
  Making it illegal to employ people without a skilled trade is a recipe for increasing the gap between rich and poor even further.  Ask yourself why labor unions are the biggest proponent of increasing the minimum wage.  Do you think their members make the minimum wage?  Of course not.  It's to make it illegal for anyone else to compete for work.
  How do you think that affects the wealth gap? >
  
  The US monetary system is the problem. Raising the minimum wage does nothing to address the root of the cause, which is government controlled fiat currency. >
  
  The main reason the Federal minimum wage has not been raised is that the world has moved away from this antiquated effort at price fixing. No matter what the proponents say about a "living wage" and not being able to feed your familiy on minimum wage very few workers in the US who are paid hourly make the minimum wage (fewer than 2%) The average wage in the US is roughly $20.00/hr. This is a solution looking for a problem. >
  
  I think it’s due to the realization that raising the federal minimum wage a dollar or two wouldn’t affect very many workers.  
  I’m in a LCOL city (turning more MCIL) and all the fast food places are advertising $12+ an hour.
  Hugh school kids babysitting are making $10-15/ hour cash.
  I don’t know who works for $7.25/he these days.  Raising it to $8.25 wouldn’t do much.
  Republicans would be against it just because, and Democrats probably wouldn’t benefit much either: there would be lots of comments about how tone-deaf they are for voting for a $9 minimum wage vs holding out for something that was more impactful (Eg $15+) >
  
  Because local states are rising across wage . So there is no massive pressure for Congress to pass something. >
  
  To be honest, minimum wage should just be based on the local area’s cost of living. The country should do away with federal minimum wage, but this system should be in place instead. >
  
  The Republicans and corporations prevent it from rising.   Usually low level farms and livestock farming producers prevent it. >
  
  Minimum wage increases do not actually drive increased buying power, they end up being a net wash by the time you take into consideration the increased labor costs being passed on to consumers.  If anything, increasing minimum wage applies undue pressure to the lower middle class because their wages are not increasing, but their buying power is decreasing.
  So, in the long term, the net effect of increasing minimum wages is actually displacing lower middle class into the working poor by indirectly raising consumer costs. >
  
  Minimum wages don’t make sense nationally. It’s much more expensive to live in a big city than out in the country. The comment here about NYC now advertising $14-17 wages illustrates that setting minimum wages doesn’t work. If you take a low wage job you will need to share living expenses. If you can’t get a good paying job learn more or plant food. >
  
  The answer to why we can't have nice things is always the same:  Republicans.
  ​
  They've gotten more selfish and evil and uncaring over the last couple decades.  Name a Republican policy that has helped Americans in need in the last 30 years. >
  
  The corporate hold on American politics is stronger than ever.
  See every major revolution in human history for evidence that the haves keep taking until the have-not's can't live. >
  
  Basically corporations have fully taken over and are dictating policy - that's what's different. The takeover is complete. >
  
  There is no mystery this.  The Republican Party has absolute dominance over the passage of all laws except those passed in a Democratic trifecta using reconciliation.  We are living in their era dominance, and they are opposed to increases in welfare or the minimum wage.
  Until the Republican Party or our system undergoes massive changes, improving the American minimum standard of living is less than a pipe dream.  It is not feasibly possible for the Democrats to win power, nor is it reasonable to expect the Republicans to support change.
  
  What changed?
  The Republicans won the House by system fuckery in 2010, and have never effectively lost power since.  Every aspect of Republican governance tips the scales for every other aspect. The Republican Senate affirms Republican Supreme Court Justices, the Justices allow gerrymandering, gerrymandering wins the House which allows Republicans to control reconciliation, etc.
  The momentum is massively towards messing with the system and playing partisan cards.  I don't think you can underestimate how easily Republicans hold the balance of power under this setup; it would take one of the largest political movements in American history for Democrats to actually hold power to do what they want to do while Republicans get to do what they want to do almost automatically, even in their worst electoral years. >
  
  Trump/DeSantis propaganda and influence on the GOP. The GOP's absolute and total loyalty to big business not unlike their loyalty to the NRA. >
  
  We effectively don't have a federal minimum wage anymore.  The 7.25 wage was irrelevant 5 years ago.
  Now it REALLY is irrelevant to an absurd degree.  
  My state raised its minimum wage in 2016 to $14, phased in over 5 years, so completing in 2021.  The clearinghouse rate for unskilled labor is now at least $20.  Maybe more.  The McDonalds near me is advertising $22 an hour.  At the low end, they have to raise their rate to whatever will get workers in the door.
  Where I think no minimum wage is hurting us are the tiers above minimum wage up to the middle.
  I was just talking about this with a teacher last night.  Starting teachers in my district make 49k.  At 22/hr, 40 hours a week is 42k a year.  Who the fuck would ever be a teacher when a McDonalds burger flipper makes 85% of a teacher's salary? >
  
  We realized minimum wages don’t work to increase wealth for workers overall. The market is a much better mechanism for determining the value of the work being performed. >
  
  Minimum wage could stay the same, and the government should cover state & federal Income taxes. If that happened then citizens would see their full paycheck & would make a world of difference