Comment on Bill to raise minimum wage to $25 an hour will be introduced in Senate

• homes@piefed.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  When I said that it’s a myth unsupported by fact, throwing out a bunch of superfluous other facts that don’t support the myth isn’t going to confuse me because I’m not stupid. And unless you can directly link inflation over the years, you’ve discussed to wage increases, which you can’t then all you’re doing is perpetuating a myth that has no factual support.

  And for the fools who refused to listen to facts, and are still afraid of some sort of systemic shock, the wage increase can be spread across two or three years, it doesn’t have to happen overnight.

  But I repeat: it’s a myth, unsupported by fact.… Unless, after that diatribe of yours, you were hiding the fact for some sort of epic, forthcoming reply…

  source

  • unitedwithme@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    OK, so you’re hell bent on just accepting a new minimum wage, regardless of how it gets there, because you just see the dollar signs going higher, not thinking about the reasoning behind why now all the sudden some rich politician wants to raise the wage 3.5x the current rate for so us normal folk… Got it.

    Instead of asking the real questions or using critical thinking, just because there’s “no direct proof” means it’s OK. Well, I’m sure that’s what everyone’s (who’s very wealthy) counting on. Nobody doing the math or working out the numbers.

    How come you didn’t talk to any of my points? Seems ironic timing at the very least a new wealth tax is discussed for the ultra wealthy getting taxed on net worth, AND NOW all the sudden they want to raise wages?!?! Seems like a distraction and you’re falling for it.

    source

    • unitedwithme@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      OK I did a little digging to get the bill info and name to look into it, not much available right now do take with a grain of salt.

      LLM breakdown:

      I’ve looked into H.R. 8555, the Living Wage For All Act. Based on what’s publicly available, here’s my breakdown of the key provisions and areas worth examining carefully:

      Core Provisions

      Main Goals:

      • Raises federal minimum wage to $25/hour through a phased-in schedule (roughly 5-year compliance timeline)
      • Ties future minimum wage automatically to two-thirds of the national median hourly wage
      • Ends all sub-minimum wage categories (tipped workers, youth wages, disability certificates)
      • Requires “large, highly-profitable corporations” to implement the higher wage first

      Corporate Threshold Definition: A company qualifies as a “large, highly-profitable corporation” subject to accelerated implementation if it has:

      • Annual gross revenue of at least $1 billion, AND
      • Net profit margin of 10% or higher

      Smaller businesses below either threshold get extended transition time.

      ---

      Areas That Could Benefit Wealthy Interests or Have Uneven Impacts

      Based on business group critiques and policy analysis, here are several provisions that warrant scrutiny:

      1. “Large Corporation” Loophole Risk

      The dual threshold (revenue + profitability) could incentivize corporate restructuring:

      • Companies might split operations across multiple smaller entities to fall below the $1B threshold
      • Profit-shifting strategies could artificially depress reported margins below 10%
      • This could effectively shield ultra-wealthy owners while burdening mid-sized competitors who can’t access similar accounting flexibility

      2. Small Business Protection Creates Competitive Advantages

      Businesses exempt from accelerated schedules could theoretically gain short-term advantage—but this cuts both ways. Critics note this might push work toward subcontracting arrangements where oversight weakens, potentially exploiting gig workers who don’t fit traditional employment categories well.

      3. Regional Cost Variations Not Accounted For

      The nationwide formula doesn’t adjust for geographic differences in living costs. A $25 minimum makes very different economic sense in rural Mississippi versus San Francisco. If passed through uniformly:

      • High-cost regions might see expected benefits
      • Lower-cost regions could face disproportionate job displacement that hurts working-class workers most—ultimately concentrating purchasing power elsewhere

      4. Price Pass-Through Consequences

      Research cited by critics suggests companies will likely pass increased labor costs to consumers through price hikes. Higher prices disproportionately hurt lower-income households who spend larger portions of income on basics, creating a regressive effect even as nominal wages rise.

      5. Automation Acceleration

      Several economic analyses warn that forcing rapid wage increases could incentivize faster automation investment. Capital-intensive solutions benefit those with access to capital (typically wealthier investors/owners) while reducing opportunities for low-skilled workers.

      ---

      What Appears Transparent vs. Less Clear

      Aspect	Clarity Level	Notes
      Dollar target ($25/hr)	Explicit	Clearly stated goal
      Corporate definitions	Explicit thresholds	But invites structural gaming
      Phased timeline	Partially explicit	Exact yearly increments unclear from public materials
      Enforcement mechanisms	Mentioned generally	Dept. of Labor responsibility noted but penalty structures unclear
      Automation/job loss protections	Not visible	No apparent safeguards against workforce displacement

      ---

      Bottom Line

      This isn’t obviously pro-wealthy in its surface language—the bill explicitly targets large profitable corporations. However, the structural design contains features that sophisticated actors could exploit:

      • Corporate structuring around thresholds favors those with legal/accounting resources
      • Indirect effects (automation, price increases, regional mismatches) may offset intended gains for some working-class populations
      • The gap between formal requirements and practical enforcement remains uncertain without seeing the complete legislative text

      For a truly definitive answer about hidden provisions favoring wealthy interests, you’d want the actual Section-by-Section Congressional Budget Office scoring, which should detail distributional impacts by income quintile. That analysis would reveal more precisely how benefits and burdens distribute across the population.

      source

      • homes@piefed.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        not much available right now do take with a grain of salt.

        yeah, I’m going to wait until the facts are in rather than speculating based on an AI summary that, itself, says:

        The gap between formal requirements and practical enforcement remains uncertain without seeing the complete legislative text

        and, furthermore, the only real arguments presented against it are through “research” presented by opponents to the bill, and such research has little credibility considering that every time it’s been done before, the apocalyptic effects its portends haven’t happened.

        source
    • homes@piefed.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Image

      source