• cybersandwich@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    When I look at what $5 in 1990 is worth today, it’s $11.80 (allegedly).

    Min wage was $3.80 then so that would make it $9.24 now.

    What am I missing?

    I guess that’s just inflation. What else should go into the minimum wage calculation. (Also this assumes $3.80 was fair back in 1990)

    • circuitfarmer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      What am I missing?

      Have you tried living off $9.24 an hour? That’s about $370 a week before taxes.

      Average rent in the US was $1372 a month 2023, which means just buying power isn’t enough to figure this out. Many people who already own property miss the fact that it’s largely impossible not to rent forever for anyone born after 1990, and extremely hard for anyone born after 1980 (on average – it differs for cheaper areas, which won’t be cheaper for much longer based on trends).

      I’d argue we have multiple factors. Inflation is a huge one, but cost of living has in many ways outpaced inflation. Those two alone are additive, which is why even the current California minimum wage of $15.50 is not enough.

      Let’s leave it as an amorphous amount for now, and I’ll ask a different question: what about a potential $50 minimum wage upsets you? What makes that a bad idea, in your view (and if you don’t believe it is, apologies in advance!).

      • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        That makes sense. I don’t know why people are down voting me like it’s reddit. It was a good faith question.

        If you look at # of hours to pay average rent it was 118 hours in 1990 min wage versus 189 with today’s. You literally have to work more that 40 hours a week to just pay rent. It wasn’t my h better in the

        I’m on board with higher minimum wage but the entire system should be looked at. Housing quadrupling in cost(to rent) seems like it should be an even bigger concern than stagnate min wage. It’s not zero sum but Jesus Christ that’s nuts.

        I don’t have a problem with a $50 min wage on the face of it. My concerns would be: does that drive inflation higher?(I read that it doesn’t, but I’m not sure how it wouldn’t) would that just make rent higher? Would the price of things skyrocket just because companies can go after the extra money? We already saw shitty corps using inflation as cover for profiteering.

        Basically what is the consequence of such a drastic increase? Would it start a race condition?

        Obviously companies across the country would potentially go under and be forced to raise compensation(which is fantastic imo). Id feel bad for some small businesses but at the same time, I think it was Roosevelt who said, if you can’t afford to pay a decent wage you can’t afford to be in business.

        And I have no sympathy for big companies like Walmart who pay people scraps and depend on the government to fill in the gaps with food stamps and welfare.

    • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      What am I missing?

      Most major inflation indices omit things like the cost of food and housing. So, they are only marginally useful in looking at the financial experiences of the populace.