(April 28, 2016 at 2:59 pm)Tiberius Wrote: The problem is, a federal minimum wage makes little to no sense, because living wages depend entirely on where you live.
The latter is certainly true.
However, I think there's two factors to consider immediately: One, the current federal minimum wage of 7.25/hr isn't a living wage anywhere in the US that I'm aware of, excepting unconventional housing (dumpsters, large cardboard boxes, etc). Secondly, nearly half of the states either have no minimum wage of their own, or simply parrot the federal wage. I am under no delusion that those states would do anything approximating the right thing if there were no federal minimum wage.
(April 28, 2016 at 2:59 pm)Tiberius Wrote: A better piece of legislation (on the federal level) would be to enforce minimum wages on a county based level, using a standard formula that takes into consideration the cost of living in the county itself.
Such a bill - even if it would pass Constitutional muster - would likely be stillborn in Congress, but yeah - having a local minimum wage set according to local cost of living would make more sense than the status quo. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure the Federal government has any authority at that level.
Indexing the minimum wage to inflation would also make sense instead of the steady erosion of purchasing power that we have today. That might not even be enough - for example, Oregon has a statewise cost of living very close to the national average and indexes it's state minimum wage to the national CPI. In 2015, Oregon had one of the highest minimum wage rates in the nation at 9.25/hr - and even at that, because it tracks the national CPI, it doesn't adequately account for the cost of housing, not by a very long ways. Portland Oregon has introduced a stepped increase to $14.50/hr locally (by 2022), but even that doesn't address many issues (such as the case where someone lives inside of Portland, but works just outside).
