this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2026
591 points (99.3% liked)

politics

29581 readers
1811 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A pair of progressive Democrats unveiled a bill on Tuesday that would raise the federal minimum wage to $25 per hour, considered the bare minimum a single adult needs to meet the cost of living in much of the US.

The Living Wage For All Act is the first bill to be introduced by the newly sworn-in Rep. Analilia Mejía (D-NJ), who won a special election earlier this month after helping to lead the fight for a $15 minimum wage in her home state of New Jersey.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 6 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

Great, next time you have a majority, pass the increase.

You don't need a super majority, stop your parliamentary bullshitting. Use "the nuclear option" (Trent Lott, R coined the term in 2000s to scare the dummies), you only need a SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE.

Don't try it just once... repeat until passage, party whips can make it happen. If they can't, go public with the holdouts and why, every day. Refuse to pass anything else until it's done.

People have been fighting for 15 an hour so long it's no longer enough. Poland has better worker benefits and pays almost as much as the USA; we will soon be surpassed by Eastern Europe.

When the labor law was passed in 1938 or so, the minimum wage was supposed to be enough to keep a family of four above the poverty line with ONE WORKER. Make that the law, because you obviously can't be trusted to raise the wage on your own in the future. You embarrassing hacks.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Great, next time you have a majority, pass the increase.

Impossible. Can't be done. You don't understand how politics works.

Now donate $2028 to my reelection campaign or this Palestinian refugee gets shoved into a wood chipper.

[–] sommerset@thelemmy.club 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Hey. I want to nationalize seashores.

It's unfair most people are kept in tiny dirty reservations ( public beaches) while the rich still own most of the costal areas.

Oceans coasts belong to all of us.

[–] FrChazzz@lemmus.org 3 points 8 hours ago

Hawai'i addressed this problem a long time ago. All of our beaches are considered public and, by law, there has to be free public access (including parking) to every stretch of seashore (that itsn't on a military base). It's wonderful, compared to where I once lived in Florida where they'd charge you like $20 just to access the "public" beach.

[–] Snowies@lemmy.zip 21 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

We need a federal minimum wage that increases with inflation every year as a default.

If your wages aren’t keeping up with inflation, you’re taking a pay cut, every year — for the same (or let’s be real, slightly more) expected workload.

It’s time for the work force in this country to organize and stand united as a whole.

A thousand rich people cannot withstand the might of 300 million working voters.

[–] HulkSmashBurgers@reddthat.com 15 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Great now do a wealth tax next please.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

Newsom is gearing up to veto California's newest attempt

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 2 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (2 children)

Wealth tax is kinda stupid because that just makes hiding all of your assets in a tax haven the default for rich people. Right now at least I believe most American billionaires are paying SOME tax in the US, because most nominally own some stuff in the US.

Actually closing the loopholes one can use to skirt existing taxes is actually more beneficial. And using your stock holdings as collateral for a loan should trigger a tax event, consider it realized gains. Also start taxing stock options when they've vested, not when the stock is sold (which might be never). When sold, the increase in value is also realized gains and should still be taxed too.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

Actually closing the loopholes

How'd those loopholes get opened to begin with?

[–] HulkSmashBurgers@reddthat.com 2 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

Yeah I hadn't researched anyting but just think that the wealthy need to pay more in taxes there's got to be a way to do that. What you describe seems like a viable path forward.

[–] Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 16 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Companies with more than $1 billion gross revenue or more than 500 employees would be scheduled to increase their minimum pay to $25/hour by 2031, while smaller employers would be on a longer timeline to reach $25/hour by 2038.

I wish we would stop chasing moving targets here. 2031 is just 5 years, but what will it mean with inflation? Using an inflation calculator and comparing $25 from five years ago (2021), to today's inflation rate, it bring us to $30.47 in 2026. Over five dollars in five years.

I'm no mathematician or economist, so correct me if I'm wrong, but if inflation continues this trend, wouldn't enacting a $25 wage in 5 years still bring us below a minimum living wage? That is, if we'd started the fight for $25 five years ago, maybe it'd make sense to make it that number today. But by picking a target that makes sense today and pushing it 5 years into the future, doesn't that mean it'll be $5 weaker (or whatever change inflation causes) when it finally rolls out?

Calculate future inflation before picking the target, then tie the number to inflation, damn it. These low numbers just mean we'll keep chasing new minimums and will always be left behind.

[–] ptc075@lemmy.zip 12 points 19 hours ago

I agree, we need to stop chasing a moving target. Instead, minimum wage needs to be adjusted every year to account for inflation.

Fun fact, the maximum amount you can donate to your congressmen is increased every year to account for inflation. So, we already have the formulas in place.

[–] jaykrown@lemmy.world 11 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I'm in Chicago, I just recently put in my 2 weeks at work because I was given additional responsibilities with no raise in pay. I told them I expected $25 an hour up from $19.50 an hour because I would effectively be taking on the responsibilities of an entire other role in the company which was being integrated into my workflow. They couldn't do it. So now I'm looking for a job that actually pays $25 now because that's the bare minimum for a living wage today.

[–] bridgeburner@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Quitting in this economy? That's risky af.

[–] jaykrown@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

Being a billionaire in this economy should be risky af.

[–] KelvarCherry@piefed.blahaj.zone 9 points 21 hours ago

The bill is cosponsored by Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), the daughter of Guatemalan immigrants who, she said, worked multiple minimum-wage jobs just to get by.

They said "a pair" so I'm dropping that for the Illinois folks.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 173 points 1 day ago (12 children)

Can’t wait to hear all the people complaining about this because they’re already making $25 an hour. As though keeping everybody else down will somehow make things better for you.

If you’re making $25 an hour, and the minimum wage changes, you should demand more money for yourself, not less money for other.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

Can’t wait to hear all the people complaining about this because they’re already making $25 an hour.

Sort of the joke with these bills.

You live in a neighborhood where $30/hr is the functioning poverty line, due to rent and utilities prices skyrocketing. Inflation makes a mockery of a five year phase in for a modern minimum wage.

Why not simply tie wages to inflation off the bat? Or straight up public employment doing work the private sector no longer cares about?

I suspect Mamdani's public run grocery store will end up paying more than $25/hr in wages by the time it goes live - two years before this wage bump comes into effect

[–] disorderly@lemmy.world 90 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Isn't it weird how when billionaires make more money "a rising tide raises all boats", but when the poorest make more money, suddenly there's extreme resource scarcity?

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 32 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Rising tide raises all yachts. Most of us can’t afford boats, so we’re just drowned by the tide.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 49 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It's called "punching down economics".

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TommySoda@lemmy.world 30 points 1 day ago (3 children)

As someone that makes around $25, that's still not even that much money. It definitely feels like a good minimum wage as I can afford my bills and food relatively easily (although it is getting harder as prices go up) but it's still not really enough to make my life that much more comfortable than it was 5 years ago.

The only complaint I have is that I needed to work for 10 years in order to reach a wage of what would now be considered minimum wage. It's always seemed like every increase in wages I have ever gotten has been a year or two too late conpared to how expensive everything is. When I was making $14 an hour the average house prices in my area were $100,000 to $300,000. Now that I'm making almost twice as much and could afford a house 8 years ago, house prices in my area average around $400,000 to $800,000 and sometimes over $1,000,000. It's like I've been playing catch up since the day I was born. In my opinion, I should be making $30+ an hour.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Etterra@discuss.online 91 points 1 day ago (18 children)

These idiots need to stop setting the minimum wage to fixed values, and set them to calculations based off GDP and localized (by county) cost of living, with an annual (or better yet quarterly) refresh on the calculation. Maybe some other variables, I'm not an economist, but the point is to have it adjust without needing constant legislative flights.

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] Darcranium@lemmy.world 54 points 1 day ago (8 children)

Would be better to lower the maximum wage

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Yeah, that's called a wealth tax or marginal tax rate. And we need that too. Only problem is that over half of America has been thoroughly brainwashed into believing that a wealth tax would "ruin the economy" because multiple conservative think tanks funded by billionaires has spent the last 4 decades propagandizing that belief into them.

[–] PhoenixDog@lemmy.world 3 points 20 hours ago

But what if I win the lottery!? Then I'll be affected! That's why I'm against it!

/s

[–] osanna@lemmy.vg 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

the weird thing is, if the billionaires had their wealth redistributed, it would actually BENEFIT the economy. People hoarding wealth does nothing for anyone except them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago

No reason it has to be only one. Both is the correct answer

[–] PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Or cap the multiplier that upper management make compared to the lowest employees and make it harder for companies to hire contractors instead of full time employees with benefits.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] nixukty@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 day ago (10 children)

genuine question, im trying to learn something. i do agree that higher wages are necessary for the current economic climate, and that raising the minimum should come with other, more in-demand jobs having their wages/salaries raised as well. however, would this worsen prices? obviously most companies could probably stomach the cost, but they would probably raise prices anyway to reclaim their original revenue stream. and then, since prices increased, a higher minimum wage would be necessary to survive in the new climate. what happens next?

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

The USA is a consumer economy.

Consumption is good. Higher wages, more consumption.

Businesses are ALWAYS raising prices, we've had 20 years with seven bucks an hour minimum, and that sure as Hell didn't keep prices the same.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 14 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

The impact of higher minimum wage on prices is way less than most people think.
First thing is that wages is only a minor share of the price already, with obviously minimum wage work again being only a minor part of the total.
The total of minimum wage workers in most companies is less than what the management makes. Sometimes even less than just the CEO. Have you ever heard fear of inflation or that prices increase because the CEOs are overpaid?

I haven't, probably because the narrative is driven by the 1%, and has little to do with real economics.

[–] PhoenixDog@lemmy.world 7 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

One thing people also never seem to factor into raising minimum wage, is that it would give people more disposable income to spend on things like going to restaurants and buying more toys and such.

Everyone always seems to complain "How could I afford to pay my employees more!?" and they never seem to figure more people would be spending money on your business.

Also simply put, if you can't pay your employees a livable wage, you shouldn't own a business.

[–] wpb@lemmy.world 7 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

As is tradition in economics, this is an idea someone had at some point, and has been touted as scientific fact and misapplied ever since (see also supply/demand curves, Jevon's paradox, and so on). It has no basis in reality.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/wage-price-spiral-explanation-inflation-dangerous-myth

Here is an article from the Cato institute disagreeing with the wage-price spiral myth. This is from a libertarian think tank -- even they don't believe it! Of course the article has the usual economics drawback of basically just guesstimating a theory and never looking at any data. Because as soon as you do that you end up with conclusions like "the living standards of Cuba went up faster than those of comparable nations with a capitalist system, even without correcting for the immense blockade by the US" and no one wants to hear that sort of stuff.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 2 points 16 hours ago

yeah, it's not like they're keeping prices low enough for the minimum wagers to buy it. It will increase the prices somewhat, but it's just what the market will bear.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BillCheddar@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago (2 children)

SIMPLE ANSWER: Companies would learn to accept lower profit.

There's no goddamn good reason for companies to "need" 15, 20, 30% profit margins. And there's zero justification for companies to assume (a) every year is a winner and (b) every year, we gotta grow.

Every dollar they keep in excess profit is a dollar they stole from you. That extra dollar increases prices, decreases the value of the money you DO get to earn, and increases the political power of the extremely wealthy people who already own the government.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

A question to add on to yours is: If inflation is defined (simplistically) as too much money in the system chasing too few products, then wouldn't taking money out of the system via taxes have a rate limiting effect on inflation?

Being that if minimum wage increases would an increase on taxes for wealthy citizens slightly offset this increase?

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago

No. That is because of the simplistic definition.

If people have "too much" money, the demand of products will go up. Specially "luxury" products. As that is what people buy when they have "too much" money. Increasing demand increases prices, therefore, inflation.

The same is true if the supply of "luxury" products decrease. For the same reasons.

However, if inflation is due to an increase of "essential" goods' prices, it's trickier. That is because increasing essential prices won't result in a decline of their demand. They are essential, people will stop buying the things they don't need, not the ones they do. Therefore, the demand of "luxury" goods will fall.

Only when people can't afford the essential goods will they stop buying them. Which probably would mean death/emigration. Only then will demand fall, because there's literally less people.

When you tax, it's the same case. People have less money, so demand for "luxury" items will fall.

So technically yes, it would reduce inflation, since there's probably some "luxury" goods in the basket you are using to measure inflation. But it won't actually reduce the price of essential goods, which is what most people would expect from a fall of inflation.

Of course, some fall of demand for "luxury" goods could mean a fall in "essential" goods. For example, a fall in water-gun fights or golf-course watering would mean a fall in demand for water, which is an essential good. Economics is not a simple subject

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 26 points 1 day ago (1 children)

For people who want the details:

Companies with more than $1 billion gross revenue or more than 500 employees would be scheduled to increase their minimum pay to $25/hour by 2031, while smaller employers would be on a longer timeline to reach $25/hour by 2038.

AKA no instant price shock

To ensure wages don’t lag again in the following years, the bill also requires the minimum wage to automatically grow each year to reach the equivalent of two-thirds the national median hourly wage.

This isn't adjusted to inflation, but the median national hourly wage tends to reflect a very similar trend to inflation as measured by the CPI, but lags behind a bit. If the base minimum wage was raised like this, it would bring that stat much more on par with inflation, if not higher than it as it stands now.

It also eliminates the subminimum wage, which is paid to tipped workers, youth workers, and workers with disabilities.

FINALLY! Just because you receive tips, are younger, or have a disability, you shouldn't be paid less than someone else if you've still gotten hired to do the job. You might be familiar with the tipped subminimum wage, which is where, if you receive tips from your job, instead of the $7.25/hr minimum wage, you can get paid as low as $2.13/hr as long as your tips make up the difference to bring you to at least $7.25.

This is one reason why so many places want you to tip now. The person doesn't get extra money, you just subsidize their employer paying them less out of their pocket.

...buuuuuuuuuut there's also a lowered minimum wage for disabled people... with literally no actual minimum. It's why one Goodwill was at one point paying a guy $0.22/hr:

https://www.cnbc.com/2013/06/21/some-disabled-workers-paid-just-pennies-an-hour.html

If I didn't know how screwed up America is, I'd assume that had to be satire, but nope, it's real. Subminimum wages being abolished is great.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›