People Getting Stretched to Limit. Credit Card Balances Soar.

[Chucktshoes]

21 minutes ago, peejman said:

Minimum wage was never meant to be career, but that's a different thread. 

I see this brought up quite a bit and have been guilty of making this argument myself in the past. That said, it just doesn’t jive with the words of FDR at the time of enactment of the first federal minimum wage. 
 

"It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By 'business' I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white-collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living."

http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/odnirast.html

And from this famous speech “A Fair Day’s Pay for a Fair Day’s Work” 

“Today, you and I are pledged to take further steps to reduce the lag in the purchasing power of industrial workers and to strengthen and stabilize the markets for the farmers' products... Our nation so richly endowed with natural resources and with a capable and industrious population should be able to devise ways and means of insuring to all our able-bodied working men and women a fair day's pay for a fair day's work... All but the hopelessly reactionary will agree that to conserve our primary resources of manpower, government must have some control over maximum hours, minimum wages, the evil of child labor and the exploitation of unorganized labor.”

 

 
Whether or not we think it is the proper policy 85 years later is a different question entirely, but the minimum wage was intended to be a living wage at its inception.

[Scotty]

31 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

I see this brought up quite a bit and have been guilty of making this argument myself in the past. That said, it just doesn’t jive with the words of FDR at the time of enactment of the first federal minimum wage. 
 

"It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By 'business' I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white-collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living."

http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/odnirast.html

And from this famous speech “A Fair Day’s Pay for a Fair Day’s Work” 

“Today, you and I are pledged to take further steps to reduce the lag in the purchasing power of industrial workers and to strengthen and stabilize the markets for the farmers' products... Our nation so richly endowed with natural resources and with a capable and industrious population should be able to devise ways and means of insuring to all our able-bodied working men and women a fair day's pay for a fair day's work... All but the hopelessly reactionary will agree that to conserve our primary resources of manpower, government must have some control over maximum hours, minimum wages, the evil of child labor and the exploitation of unorganized labor.”

 

 
Whether or not we think it is the proper policy 85 years later is a different question entirely, but the minimum wage was intended to be a living wage at its inception.

Thanks for posting this. 
 

On my grandmas deathbed I picked her brain. I asked who her favorite president was. No hesitation she said FDR. 
 

People deserve a living wage. Not minimum. 
 

Im in my late thirties. I’m fortunate where I grew up poor and was frugal all my life. Put 30% down, paid for school out of pocket. I’ve worked three jobs my whole life. My 15 year mortgage is manageable, it’s all the necessities that come with life that has skyrocketed. Health care, auto and home insurance/property taxes, pet insurance, almost everything across the board has nearly doubled for me. I carry good insurance on everything because I really like my home and I’m not trying to lose it over an act of god. 
 

I now need to make $8k post tax just to have the qualifications to keep a roof over my head and a paid off beater Honda accord to earn money. I shop around every 6 months for insurance. Groceries is another issue. I was in such a better spot financially pre-covid… my firearm hobby is half of what it used to be because I’m still worried about inflation. 
 

I bartend on the side. Always will. I’ve had 3, correct 3 people reach out to me to ask me for work. They all have doctorates or 5 year degrees. They’re all my age. I feel fortunate that I have no debt and buy everything outright. I can’t stress enough that it’s tough for millennials at the moment. Sure you can blame DoorDash, and subscription services and avocado toast. That doesn’t change the fact that a dollar is worth 20% less now than it was pre covid. 

[peejman]

10 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

I see this brought up quite a bit and have been guilty of making this argument myself in the past. That said, it just doesn’t jive with the words of FDR at the time of enactment of the first federal minimum wage. 
 

"It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By 'business' I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white-collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living."

http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/odnirast.html

And from this famous speech “A Fair Day’s Pay for a Fair Day’s Work” 

“Today, you and I are pledged to take further steps to reduce the lag in the purchasing power of industrial workers and to strengthen and stabilize the markets for the farmers' products... Our nation so richly endowed with natural resources and with a capable and industrious population should be able to devise ways and means of insuring to all our able-bodied working men and women a fair day's pay for a fair day's work... All but the hopelessly reactionary will agree that to conserve our primary resources of manpower, government must have some control over maximum hours, minimum wages, the evil of child labor and the exploitation of unorganized labor.”

 

 
Whether or not we think it is the proper policy 85 years later is a different question entirely, but the minimum wage was intended to be a living wage at its inception.

I think of minimum wage and a living wage as 2 different things.  Minimum wage is for those with no skills or experience, such as high school kids getting their first job. Once they gain some skills and experience, their value should increase to earn a living wage.  

I know it doesn't work that way, but it should.  

[Chucktshoes]

1 hour ago, peejman said:

I think of minimum wage and a living wage as 2 different things.  Minimum wage is for those with no skills or experience, such as high school kids getting their first job. Once they gain some skills and experience, their value should increase to earn a living wage.  

I know it doesn't work that way, but it should.  

It’s a common view, and why I mentioned what it should be now being a different conversation than what the intent was at its inception. 

[gregintenn]

1 hour ago, Chucktshoes said:

It’s a common view, and why I mentioned what it should be now being a different conversation than what the intent was at its inception. 

Let’s imagine I’m lying around doing nothing, and you have some limbs in your yard that needs cleaning up. If I’m willing to do that for $5 an hour, and you’re willing to pay that to have it done, I don’t see where that should be any concern to the government.

A minimum wage job is a good stepping stone into the workforce for teenagers, or a good way for a retiree to get out and socialize a bit. If a person spends 40 years of their life manning the grill at McDonald’s, they’ve screwed up somewhere along the way.

FDR was a big government progressive commie.

[BigK]

34 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

Let’s imagine I’m lying around doing nothing, and you have some limbs in your yard that needs cleaning up. If I’m willing to do that for $5 an hour, and you’re willing to pay that to have it done, I don’t see where that should be any concern to the government.

A minimum wage job is a good stepping stone into the workforce for teenagers, or a good way for a retiree to get out and socialize a bit. If a person spends 40 years of their life manning the grill at McDonald’s, they’ve screwed up somewhere along the way.

FDR was a big government progressive commie.

You are 100% right about FDR. I don't care what he had to say, minimum wage is not a living wage. It's the wage at which zero skill workers and zero skill jobs meet. God knows the trash needs taking out and floors need sweeping at McDonalds. However, anyone who thinks they should be able to afford a car note, groceries, cell phone bills, and rent when that's all you bring to the table is destined to learn hard life lessons.

[Chucktshoes]

1 hour ago, gregintenn said:

Let’s imagine I’m lying around doing nothing, and you have some limbs in your yard that needs cleaning up. If I’m willing to do that for $5 an hour, and you’re willing to pay that to have it done, I don’t see where that should be any concern to the government.

A minimum wage job is a good stepping stone into the workforce for teenagers, or a good way for a retiree to get out and socialize a bit. If a person spends 40 years of their life manning the grill at McDonald’s, they’ve screwed up somewhere along the way.

FDR was a big government progressive commie.

 

1 hour ago, BigK said:

You are 100% right about FDR. I don't care what he had to say, minimum wage is not a living wage. It's the wage at which zero skill workers and zero skill jobs meet. God knows the trash needs taking out and floors need sweeping at McDonalds. However, anyone who thinks they should be able to afford a car note, groceries, cell phone bills, and rent when that's all you bring to the table is destined to learn hard life lessons.

FDR was a commie and he filled the federal bureaucracy with like-minded comrades. All of that is immaterial to the point that I was making regarding the facts around the creation of the federal minimum wage.
 

I’m quite familiar with the arguments surrounding the concept of a minimum wage. I wasn’t making any sort of argument for or against what a minimum wage should be, should provide, or even if it should exist.
 

I’ll be honest, I’m not even really interested in engaging in that debate at the moment for the simple reason that I have fairly conflicted feelings about the whole matter.  It is difficult in that I’ve long been of a broadly and even at times radically libertarian economic worldview. At the same time I am cognizant of the reality of our oligarchic crony capitalist system in which free markets are truly more of a myth than a reality.

How things should work and how they actually do work are diametrically opposed, and I don’t know a good way to fix it. At least not in a way that doesn’t involve great risk of losing what little window dressing of liberty we have left.

[gregintenn]

4 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

 

FDR was a commie and he filled the federal bureaucracy with like-minded comrades. All of that is immaterial to the point that I was making regarding the facts around the creation of the federal minimum wage.
 

I’m quite familiar with the arguments surrounding the concept of a minimum wage. I wasn’t making any sort of argument for or against what a minimum wage should be, should provide, or even if it should exist.
 

I’ll be honest, I’m not even really interested in engaging in that debate at the moment for the simple reason that I have fairly conflicted feelings about the whole matter.  It is difficult in that I’ve long been of a broadly and even at times radically libertarian economic worldview. At the same time I am cognizant of the reality of our oligarchic crony capitalist system in which free markets are truly more of a myth than a reality.

How things should work and how they actually do work are diametrically opposed, and I don’t know a good way to fix it. At least not in a way that doesn’t involve great risk of losing what little window dressing of liberty we have left.

I understand. It has been my experience, however, that if you find a problem that needs fixing, government usually isn’t your best tool to fix it.

I’d be curious how many here still make minimum wage. Hell, I’m not sure I know anybody who makes minimum wage. I still have a kid in college, and he makes at least $15 just doing odd jobs. A lot of folks pay him $20 or better. These are not jobs that require skill, knowledge, or tools. Just show up and follow instruction.

[Tom B]

12 hours ago, gregintenn said:

I’d be curious how many here still make minimum wage. Hell, I’m not sure I know anybody who makes minimum wage. I still have a kid in college, and he makes at least $15 just doing odd jobs. A lot of folks pay him $20 or better. These are not jobs that require skill, knowledge, or tools. Just show up and follow instruction.

I seal driveways once in a while, just for some spending money. I can stay busier if I want, but at this point I'm picky about the ones I do.

I like to ask the homeowners how they came to pick me to do the job, seeing as how others in the area do it also, and usually the answer I get is, "You showed up".

[NoBanStan]

21 hours ago, BigK said:

You are 100% right about FDR. I don't care what he had to say, minimum wage is not a living wage. It's the wage at which zero skill workers and zero skill jobs meet. God knows the trash needs taking out and floors need sweeping at McDonalds. However, anyone who thinks they should be able to afford a car note, groceries, cell phone bills, and rent when that's all you bring to the table is destined to learn hard life lessons.

This. The McJob is not responsible for your life choices. Granted, not everyone gets a choice.. but the overwhelming vast majority do.

If you want more you gotta fight for more. I think some folks go through life believing that the world owes them something or it will just fall in their lap.

I know countless people who just complain of their lot while doing nothing to improve it. Meanwhile, they light up a smoke, sip on their starbucks and complain on facebook.

[LangdoniousRex]

Increasing minimum wage is UBI with more steps. Change my mind.

[btq96r]

44 minutes ago, LangdoniousRex said:

Increasing minimum wage is UBI with more steps. Change my mind.

At least with minimum wage you have to show up and (presumably) work to get it.  UBI is conditioned on nothing other than existing for the most part.  Tying economic benefit to some type of service provided (public or private) is a benefit to society, the economy, and the individual.  Even "that commie" FDR and his administration knew work was the best way forward, not just handouts for the sake of them.  As much as people want to look back at the New Deal being something that a boatload of people on the gov teat, it was in return for work of all types the nation and the individual benefited from.

[NoBanStan]

1 hour ago, LangdoniousRex said:

Increasing minimum wage is UBI with more steps. Change my mind.

I'm not for UBI in the slightest unless you are determined to be incapable of working and we already have other programs for that (incapable meaning actually incapable, not "under privileged").

Minimum wage at least ensures you're working to get it. It's a legacy guardrail to ensure corporations couldn't essentially make slave labor. So I get why it's a thing, but it also doesn't mean that taking out the trash is worth $25/hr.

[deerslayer]

Able-bodied, healthy people deserve whatever wage/compensation they earn.  Determining a fair price for labor should be no different from other commodities - the price that a buyer (employer) is willing to pay and a seller (employee) is willing to accept.  I don’t get why .gov thinks it should interfere in this two party transaction.  

The whole thing has an odor of communism because the script is sometimes flipped and instead of arguing that a buyer must pay the seller more (employer/employee), suddenly a seller is charging too much and is "price gouging" (manufacturer/consumer).  There is no such thing as long as the seller is allowed to own his own his property, which (fortunately) is still mostly in fashion in the US.

Edited May 28 by deerslayer

[btq96r]

9 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

Able-bodied, healthy people deserve whatever wage/compensation they earn.  Determining a fair price for labor should be no different from other commodities - the price that a buyer (employer) is willing to pay and a seller (employee) is willing to accept.  I don’t get why .gov thinks it should interfere in this two party transaction.  

Because there is a societal interest in making sure a floor of standards to prevent exploitation of low income workers exists.  The minimum wage was just one part of a broader package that also set the standard work week, and put guardrails on minors working.  All three things were out of whack leading up to, and during the depression.

[deerslayer]

4 minutes ago, btq96r said:

Because there is a societal interest in making sure a floor of standards to prevent exploitation of low income workers exists.  The minimum wage was just one part of a broader package that also set the standard work week, and put guardrails on minors working.  All three things were out of whack leading up to, and during the depression.

Right, labor unions were a free-market response to these conditions as well, but here we are in 2024 and people still claim they are being exploited and nothing has changed.  

[btq96r]

3 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

Right, labor unions were a free-market response to these conditions as well, but here we are in 2024 and people still claim they are being exploited and nothing has changed.  

If you look at the divide between rewards based on returns from the labor outputs between workers and executives/investors, there's a case in plenty of industries.  It's more of a discussion about equity (financial equity, not DEI equity) than anything about basic minimums and work structures, but it's a real conversation.

I'm hoping we see the pendulum swing towards labor workers getting stock grants as a norm, not offered at a discount as part of an ESPP.  That would close up the gap and level part of the playing field....especially if stock holdings among union members was voted collectively.

[deerslayer]

21 minutes ago, btq96r said:

If you look at the divide between rewards based on returns from the labor outputs between workers and executives/investors, there's a case in plenty of industries. 

Call me weird, but anyone who truly believes this should be motivated to move from worker to executive/investor instead of bitching about people who have more than they do.  

A quick, superficial glance would seem to confirm this comparison, but let those workers do without investors/executives/management who steer the company through technological change, ensure payroll is able to be completed, administer employee insurance/healthcare programs, hire new employees, fire the ones bleeding the company, prevent .gov from regulating them to non-profit status, and find new services or goods to offer to remain profitable and stable.  The workers can't function without the executives and vice versa, but there are more potential workers available than there are executives.  There are workers who pull more than their own weight and there are executives who can't tie their shoes, but generally, who is more easily replaced? 

Edited May 28 by deerslayer

[btq96r]

17 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

Call me weird, but anyone who truly believes this should be motivated to move from worker to executive/investor instead of bitching about people who have more than they do.  

A quick, superficial glance would seem to confirm this comparison, but let those workers do without investors/executives/management who steer the company through technological change, ensure payroll is able to be completed, administer employee insurance/healthcare programs, hire new employees, fire the ones bleeding the company, prevent .gov from regulating them to non-profit status, and find new services or goods to offer to remain profitable and stable.  The workers can't function without the executives and vice versa, but there are more potential workers available than there are executives.  There are workers who pull more than their own weight and there are executives who can't tie their shoes, but generally, who is more easily replaced? 

I get the logic behind your statement here.  I'm an support management at my own company, and I don't qualify for their private equity purchases or grants (the doctors I work with can buy in, and some get grants as comp).  Through index funds, have my net worth tied to companies I'm not a labor or management participant in.   So, I say all the below as someone who benefits from the labor of others in companies other than my own for future income beyond my job.

Some folks shouldn't or just can't make the transition from worker bee to what I'll call office level management.   Not a knock on them, if that's a path they can take and do it well, more power to them.

Let's say they offer the line employees an extra 10% of their salary in stock.  No W2 pay cut, just 10% of the gross in stock grants.  That is a fractional cost in nominal value to the company, and if done through a reasonable vesting schedule, can reward employees who stick around and help grow the company and/or keep it profitable. 

And with AI at a spark, soon to be a fire before we know it, on the way to becoming a star in terms of outputs and use, I think those who actually use their hands and intuition are going to become a more valuable commodity than in middle management at the moment.  So, this is something we'll keep debating, and rightfully so.

[deerslayer]

53 minutes ago, btq96r said:

Some folks shouldn't or just can't make the transition from worker bee to what I'll call office level management.   Not a knock on them, if that's a path they can take and do it well, more power to them.

I'm not knocking them either, but if they do a job most anyone can learn to do, have less to offer, or aren't capable of what others can do, they shouldn't be arguing about financial equity.  

 

53 minutes ago, btq96r said:

Let's say they offer the line employees an extra 10% of their salary in stock.  No W2 pay cut, just 10% of the gross in stock grants.  That is a fractional cost in nominal value to the company, and if done through a reasonable vesting schedule, can reward employees who stick around and help grow the company and/or keep it profitable. 

This would be counterintuitive to why most organizations even offer employees stock - most stock programs award employees more heavily after a good year and less so after a bad year.  Most management types who are told that stock rewards are part of their compensation end up with XYZ dollar amount, determined by a given formula each year, which may result in say 25 shares after a good year and five shares (or maybe zero) after a bad year.  Awarding pre-determined X% of workers' gross pay regardless of how the organization performed could result in workers getting more shares (albeit worth less each) after a bad year.  This would seem to disincentivize performance, which is usually what drives these type rewards in the first place.  

In a unionized company, the unions would never allow a performance-based stock program for their members to even be discussed because it would (gasp!) encourage employees to increase production!  BLASPHEMY!

 

53 minutes ago, btq96r said:

And with AI at a spark, soon to be a fire before we know it, on the way to becoming a star in terms of outputs and use, I think those who actually use their hands and intuition are going to become a more valuable commodity than in middle management at the moment. 

  Middle/lower level management is always getting hosed.  Ask me how I know 

Edited May 28 by deerslayer

[btq96r]

3 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

I'm not knocking them either, but if they do a job most anyone can learn to do, have less to offer, or aren't capable of what others can do, they shouldn't be arguing about financial equity.  

The counter to that is, so many of those execs and managers couldn't come close to doing what the workers do.  In some industries that require licensing, you see very few people from the rank and file rise in management.  When you get to that point, you have two sets of people who can be easily replaced.  Yet only one side currently gets equity as a comp incentive way more often than not.

 

6 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

This would be counterintuitive to why most organizations even offer employees stock - most stock programs award employees more heavily after a good year and less so after a bad year.  Most management types who are told that stock rewards are part of their compensation end up with XYZ dollar amount, determined by a given formula each year, which may result in say 25 shares after a good year and five shares (or maybe zero) after a bad year.  Awarding pre-determined X% of workers' gross pay regardless of how the organization performed could result in workers getting more shares (albeit worth less each) after a bad year.  This would seem to disincentivize performance, which is usually what drives these type rewards in the first place.  

I just used 10% as an example for discussion purposes.  The period based reward of shares can be used for labor employees too.  I'm all for aligning logical performance measures.  And you can tailor that by section.  Factory workers X number of units shipped, Y% of quality control pass rate...IT can be managed in network up/downtime, average ticket open to resolved time...whatever accounting and HR can be evaluated by; I'll admit I don't much to offer in ideas for them.  But the idea is to award more ownership for employees and teams that show they want to own the work product.  That way workers are being rewarded more for their contributions to the vision being developed and mapped out by their executives.  Again, these will be fractional compared to how many stock units are out for the general public on exchanges, or privately held. 

But my main point is, company equity, private or public should be more freely dished out to give incentives beyond the paycheck or bonuses.  Yeah, I get people want cash, but getting folks invested in their companies again is something we need to consider.  Throw in proper vesting safeguards and I think it can work.

 

7 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

  Middle/lower level management is always getting hosed.  Ask me how I know 

[deerslayer]

6 minutes ago, btq96r said:

The counter to that is, so many of those execs and managers couldn't come close to doing what the workers do.  In some industries that require licensing, you see very few people from the rank and file rise in management.  When you get to that point, you have two sets of people who can be easily replaced.  Yet only one side currently gets equity as a comp incentive way more often than not.

I work at a company where much (not all) of the management are promoted from within.  Some of them can definitely still walk the walk.  Others, not so much lol.  Whether they moved up the ladder or were hired from the street, IMO the folks who become proficient at making sure people are doing the work are often harder to replace than the people doing the work.  The more basic the work, the more this is true.  Also, half the people who do the work wouldn't do anything if there was no boss around.  

 

6 minutes ago, btq96r said:

I just used 10% as an example for discussion purposes.  The period based reward of shares can be used for labor employees too.  I'm all for aligning logical performance measures.  And you can tailor that by section.  Factory workers X number of units shipped, Y% of quality control pass rate...IT can be managed in network up/downtime, average ticket open to resolved time...whatever accounting and HR can be evaluated by; I'll admit I don't much to offer in ideas for them.  But the idea is to award more ownership for employees and teams that show they want to own the work product.  That way workers are being rewarded more for their contributions to the vision being developed and mapped out by their executives.  Again, these will be fractional compared to how many stock units are out for the general public on exchanges, or privately held. 

But my main point is, company equity, private or public should be more freely dished out to give incentives beyond the paycheck or bonuses.  Yeah, I get people want cash, but getting folks invested in their companies again is something we need to consider.  Throw in proper vesting safeguards and I think it can work.

In theory, I like the idea of getting workers of all stripes motivated to make the organization prosper and share in some of that success.  Keep in mind, however, that the management/worker ratio is probably 10:1 or even 100:1 in some places.  The sheer number of workers may make such a plan that was actually meaningful financially difficult.  

6 minutes ago, btq96r said:

 

[LangdoniousRex]

5 hours ago, btq96r said:

At least with minimum wage you have to show up and (presumably) work to get it.  UBI is conditioned on nothing other than existing for the most part.  Tying economic benefit to some type of service provided (public or private) is a benefit to society, the economy, and the individual.  Even "that commie" FDR and his administration knew work was the best way forward, not just handouts for the sake of them.  As much as people want to look back at the New Deal being something that a boatload of people on the gov teat, it was in return for work of all types the nation and the individual benefited from.

 

5 hours ago, NoBanStan said:

I'm not for UBI in the slightest unless you are determined to be incapable of working and we already have other programs for that (incapable meaning actually incapable, not "under privileged").

Minimum wage at least ensures you're working to get it. It's a legacy guardrail to ensure corporations couldn't essentially make slave labor. So I get why it's a thing, but it also doesn't mean that taking out the trash is worth $25/hr.

Both of you homed in on "minimum wage" but completely ignored the "increasing" part. Federal minimum wage has been $7.25/hr for 15 years and that seems adequate to prevent "slave" labor. Prior to that, there have been very safe incremental increases over time that had no significant effect on the economy at large as the market tends to self-correct. All's well there.

The problem is states deciding to make humongous jumps in their minimum wages for no other reason than to buy votes from their low to no skill constituents then, once in effect, everyone collectively starts crying over how cost of living shoots up. Did they earn this pay increase by improving their skills or doing a better job? No. They got raises because daddy government promised them more money for doing the exact same thing they've been doing; the minimum.  

If they can buy votes with minimum wage increases, what's to stop them from buying votes with UBI? It's a slippery slope. I mean all the illegals getting debit cards, housing, etc is basically a test phase UBI. Take a wild guess who they'll be voting for. 

 

[LangdoniousRex]

3 hours ago, btq96r said:

And with AI at a spark, soon to be a fire...

That's what they want you to think. It's nowhere near as advanced as it's presented to the general public. Also, it's not AI, it's really fast machine learning. 

[NoBanStan]

34 minutes ago, LangdoniousRex said:

 

Both of you homed in on "minimum wage" but completely ignored the "increasing" part.

 

I didn't ignore it. I just wasn't trying to change your mind