Columbus $15 Minimum Wage

[Eugene_C]

stechs02 wrote:

This is cute… It is a good thing the unemployment rate doesn’t include discouraged workers or workers who are not looking for a job. Here is an interesting fact, 33% of Americans 16 or over are not participating in the workforce, the highest since 1978…

Workforce participation is tracked, separately, as evidenced by your ability to quickly provide the numbers. My question is why should non-participants be tracked in the “Unemployment Rate”? If someone doesn’t want a job badly enough to actively look for one or create one themselves, then why should they be counted as “unemployed”? They obviously don’t need a job that badly, and are able to live somehow and have a phone to answer the survey.

[DLDude]

spfld_expat wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>stechs02 wrote:</div>
Here is an interesting fact, 33% of Americans 16 or over are not participating in the workforce, the highest since 1978.

Baby boomers are retiring.

ding ding ding ding. Same goes for the argument that 47% of people don’t pay any taxes

[Ned23]

I also recall seeing something about a slight uptick in one-income families. More couples are choosing to live on one income until salaries improve. They feel their time is better spent at home with their families. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. I fact it’s classic “supply vs demand”. People are supplying less labor in response to lower labor prices.

[pedex]

Eugene_C wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>stechs02 wrote:</div>
This is cute… It is a good thing the unemployment rate doesn’t include discouraged workers or workers who are not looking for a job. Here is an interesting fact, 33% of Americans 16 or over are not participating in the workforce, the highest since 1978…

Workforce participation is tracked, separately, as evidenced by your ability to quickly provide the numbers. My question is why should non-participants be tracked in the “Unemployment Rate”? If someone doesn’t want a job badly enough to actively look for one or create one themselves, then why should they be counted as “unemployed”? They obviously don’t need a job that badly, and are able to live somehow and have a phone to answer the survey.

To provide an overall perspective of the employment situation. Having the work force shrink due to unemployment isn’t good just like unemployment rising while the available workforce stays the same isn’t good either. It would be a different story if wages and income levels were allowing many to voluntarily leave the work force because they are wealthy enough to do so but this isn’t the case at all. The middle class is being wiped out and the lower class is growing while the gap between very wealthy and poor is increasing pretty quickly.

[ricospaz]

You are also tracked if you are collecting welfare.

[Ned23]

I say Columbus adopts a minimum wage that is equal to the state min wage + $2/hr, and that goes up to a $15 cap. That would put it at $10-something now, and it wouldn’t hit $15 until the state’s minimum hit $13, at that point it would stay at $15 until the state or federal minimum passed $15.

[pez]

Ned23 wrote:

I say Columbus adopts a minimum wage that is equal to the state min wage + $2/hr, and that goes up to a $15 cap. That would put it at $10-something now, and it wouldn’t hit $15 until the state’s minimum hit $13, at that point it would stay at $15 until the state or federal minimum passed $15.

Appears that the statewide minimum wage was set by the 2006 constitutional amendment without a provision for allowing municipalities to alter it for private employers.

[Posole]

pez wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Ned23 wrote:</div>
I say Columbus adopts a minimum wage that is equal to the state min wage + $2/hr, and that goes up to a $15 cap. That would put it at $10-something now, and it wouldn’t hit $15 until the state’s minimum hit $13, at that point it would stay at $15 until the state or federal minimum passed $15.

Appears that the statewide minimum wage was set by the 2006 constitutional amendment without a provision for allowing municipalities to alter it for private employers.

Does the amendment preclude municipalities from raising it? That’s interesting if that’s the case. I’m guessing the people who put that amendment together never foresaw the minimum wage tsunami that was coming, and it didn’t occur to them to put that in.

[Author]

Posts