My answer is more radical. Tie their tax breaks to the linearly interpolated value of the median wage in the company between minimum wage and whatever is actually a living wage. At halfway between the two they get an equilibrium point, below it is a harsh penalty, above is an increasing percentage of their tax break. Wonder how long it would take of McDonalds owing an obscene penalty on their taxes before they started actually paying employees.
I would also be in favor of levying MASSIVE corporate tax penalties for every employee on government assistance. At this point, government programs are less socialism for the people and more socialism for the likes of WalMart.
I like this idea. It reduces my primary concern with raising the minimum wage, that it would cause a dramatic and hard to control increase in the inflation rate. Inflation/Cost off of living would increase, but it would probably be controllable under these circumstances.
When applied to multinationals, it would result in companies exporting high skill jobs overseas to bring pay down. Would need to legislate behavior as well to stop companies trying to get around it
I like the idea of rent prices being tied directly to pay, maybe a straight %. It would be complicated, but pitting greedy landlords up against greedy businesses sound much more fair than getting fucked from both sides.
Landlords want to make the most money, but if what they can charge was directly tied to minimum wage, they will actually fight to raise pay. Not for altruism or any positive reason, but because they want to increase their own revenue.
It’s not a great idea, but it’s something I’ve thought about for a decade or so. Especially when that “Fight for $15” took so long to that even if $15 was the minimum wage, it would still be way behind to cost of living.
Landleeches can get fucked as far as I am concerned. Implement a chit system like NYC taxies so only a fixed number of single family homes can be rentals in a town, make strict livability (not habitability) standards for those rentals with steep fines and inspections every 2 years, and cap rent at a % of the real value of the property. You let a house languish so it is only worth $40k, you don’t get to charge $2k/month to live there.
It’s not like I’m pro landlord. But, being realistic about a capitalist society, pitting those with opposing interests to fight one another is so much better than both of those things existing uncheck and us being the victim.
Yeah, I agree that it would be popcorn worthy, but I also have a strong suspicion that doing that would end up getting gamed by both and consumers would have compounding losses.
My answer is more radical. Tie their tax breaks to the linearly interpolated value of the median wage in the company between minimum wage and whatever is actually a living wage. At halfway between the two they get an equilibrium point, below it is a harsh penalty, above is an increasing percentage of their tax break. Wonder how long it would take of McDonalds owing an obscene penalty on their taxes before they started actually paying employees.
I would also be in favor of levying MASSIVE corporate tax penalties for every employee on government assistance. At this point, government programs are less socialism for the people and more socialism for the likes of WalMart.
I like this idea. It reduces my primary concern with raising the minimum wage, that it would cause a dramatic and hard to control increase in the inflation rate. Inflation/Cost off of living would increase, but it would probably be controllable under these circumstances.
When applied to multinationals, it would result in companies exporting high skill jobs overseas to bring pay down. Would need to legislate behavior as well to stop companies trying to get around it
Oh, I never said it was perfect and I have actually thought through all of those issues, just didn’t want to bog down the comment in details and math.
I like the idea of rent prices being tied directly to pay, maybe a straight %. It would be complicated, but pitting greedy landlords up against greedy businesses sound much more fair than getting fucked from both sides.
Landlords want to make the most money, but if what they can charge was directly tied to minimum wage, they will actually fight to raise pay. Not for altruism or any positive reason, but because they want to increase their own revenue.
It’s not a great idea, but it’s something I’ve thought about for a decade or so. Especially when that “Fight for $15” took so long to that even if $15 was the minimum wage, it would still be way behind to cost of living.
Landleeches can get fucked as far as I am concerned. Implement a chit system like NYC taxies so only a fixed number of single family homes can be rentals in a town, make strict livability (not habitability) standards for those rentals with steep fines and inspections every 2 years, and cap rent at a % of the real value of the property. You let a house languish so it is only worth $40k, you don’t get to charge $2k/month to live there.
It’s not like I’m pro landlord. But, being realistic about a capitalist society, pitting those with opposing interests to fight one another is so much better than both of those things existing uncheck and us being the victim.
Yeah, I agree that it would be popcorn worthy, but I also have a strong suspicion that doing that would end up getting gamed by both and consumers would have compounding losses.