I'll ask the question again to the Bernie people...
Do you agree with the statement "a wage increase without a proportional increase in labor productivity will necessarily lead to a proportional increase in inflation"? If yes, what proposals are being made alongside Fight for Fifteen's wage demand that address labor productivity? If no, which part of the statement is flawed and why?
What's flawed is this is entirely a backwards way to look at it. The problem is minimum wage hasn't been increasing with inflation as it used to in the past, the top just keeps the entire pie while the little guys fight over the crumbs. Of course they're only interested in money so prices will go up which is why they need to be regulated. If businesses are people then they're sociopaths. We shouldn't let sociopaths run around freely.
i tend to agree with this way of looking at it.
The scare tactics about minimum wage increases are little more than that - scare tactics.
Personally, i know that when i earn a better wage, i am a happier, healthier and more productive worker.
That must surely be of benefit to more than myself and my employer.
Multiply that by the amount of people who would be affected (positively) by a change in the minimum wage, and it becomes a much bigger social shift than that of a single worker and their family.
I can't comment specifically on the finer points of your question, because i don't fully understand the finer points of how the labour market works in the USA - but i think i earned more than $15 flipping burgers in high school.
The idea that people are
employed but still desperately poor and unable to support their basic living needs - shelter, food, health care - is fairly unique in the Western world, and (in my opinion) a pretty unacceptable situation in a nation as wealthy and powerful as the USA.
There may be "teething problems" in legislating a $15 minimum wage - but i feel that any such risk is justified, as the situation now, for many working class and lower income americans is simply untenable.
If people in service industries, for example, earned a livable wage and no longer had to rely on 'tips' from customers - think about how much customers would save.
Would it offset
potential rises in inflation? I don't know; i'm not an economist and am merely speculating.
But coming from a country where 'tipping culture' is
not obligatory, and low-paid workers have fought for centuries for a better deal (such as a 'fair' minimum wage, the 8 hour working day as standard, the 5 day working week, and so on) - it seems ridiculous to resist increasing the
lowest paid workers, should it potentially have negative economic consequences.
Surely paying low-income workers enough money to live on - as well as to participate a bit more in the consumer economy - can have a range of positive wider economic impacts as well?
I'm unconvinced that paying low income earners more could be anything but a positive thing - especially in light of the
obscene amounts of money paid to company CEOs and other corporate executives.
