No, but the same food and lodging costs drastically different based on location in this country. A New York City cost of living would bankrupt small businesses in rural Nebraska who also price their services based on regional costs. It’s just more logical than a flat minimum wage for the whole country.
The problem with having a universal minimum wage is the minimum is usually pegged to the state with the lowest COI, and there are usually assholes in government in higher COI states who will not require their state to set the minimum any higher. So you end up with people still struggling to survive because the minimum wage is too low and their state doesn’t have any delta. Pegging the minimum wage to regional COI makes way more sense given the vast differences in COI between urban and rural parts of states.
Reality would beg to differ. While I’m sure it’s not all fair and even, most of the higher cost of living states already have a much higher minimum wage. Many require more than double
No, but the same food and lodging costs drastically different based on location in this country.
Rent’s going up everywhere. Lower wages for the states whose voters you regard with contempt is only going to create a permanent underclass of flyover Morlocks who will get hungry.
Dude, what are you talking about? I live in rural Indiana. I also realize that cost of living is not the same in every area and making the minimum wage one flat rate creates problems when the cost of living is not flat. This is common sense, not a bias against “flyover states” like the one I live in. That’s why I said it should be pegged to cost of living reports that are already conducted by the government across every region of the country. This way if rent goes up, it would automatically be accounted for and adjusted.
No, but the same food and lodging costs drastically different based on location in this country. A New York City cost of living would bankrupt small businesses in rural Nebraska who also price their services based on regional costs. It’s just more logical than a flat minimum wage for the whole country.
That’s why it’s the MINIMUM wage. It isn’t saying places like New York City needs to pay that low, nor is it saying they can’t mandate higher.
It is saying that every person, anywhere, should at an absolute minimum, be offered this baseline.
The problem with having a universal minimum wage is the minimum is usually pegged to the state with the lowest COI, and there are usually assholes in government in higher COI states who will not require their state to set the minimum any higher. So you end up with people still struggling to survive because the minimum wage is too low and their state doesn’t have any delta. Pegging the minimum wage to regional COI makes way more sense given the vast differences in COI between urban and rural parts of states.
Reality would beg to differ. While I’m sure it’s not all fair and even, most of the higher cost of living states already have a much higher minimum wage. Many require more than double
That’s how it used to work until WFHers realized they can make urban wages and live in the country; literally eating their cake and having it too
Rent’s going up everywhere. Lower wages for the states whose voters you regard with contempt is only going to create a permanent underclass of flyover Morlocks who will get hungry.
Dude, what are you talking about? I live in rural Indiana. I also realize that cost of living is not the same in every area and making the minimum wage one flat rate creates problems when the cost of living is not flat. This is common sense, not a bias against “flyover states” like the one I live in. That’s why I said it should be pegged to cost of living reports that are already conducted by the government across every region of the country. This way if rent goes up, it would automatically be accounted for and adjusted.