So, I just came across some "republicans against Trump" meme where they were still doing resentment politics and they were like "WHY SHOULD SOME TEENAGER MAKING $20 AN HOUR EARN $3200 A MONTH, THE MINIMUM SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENT SHOULD BE $3200 A MONTH!" or something like that. Ya know, resentment politics. The cudgel the right often uses to undermine any progressive idea ever because "it's not fair" to some other group who "deserves it more." I hate these politics with a passion. But given this was a republicans against Trump meme, I can't tell if they were arguing against the minimum wage or for that to actually be the minimum social security payment. Maybe they're just trying to get us to argue among both. Anyway, I'm gonna address these arguments here.
First of all, the minimum wage. The minimum wage applies to all workers, and I know that people like to think of minimum wage workers as like pimply faced teenagers just looking for fun spending money and not having any responsibilities, but that's the problem. Many people make minimum wage who are older. If I worked an actual job, I'd probably make close to minimum wage. It was all that I could get out of college. And the economy hasnt really improved much since, at least from personal lived in experience. Anyway, the typical minimum wage worker is older. Like 20s-30s or something. They're trying to feed a family, and rent is often like $1500-2000 a month these days so half these guys' paychecks are going just for a roof over their head.
Second of all, I doubt many teenagers work full time. If they're in school, I'm guessing they're working closer to 10-20 hours a week, so their actual pay is closer to $800-1600 a month, not $3200. Maybe during the summer, but even then, say they work 3 months at $3200 a month, that's $10800. You can't really pay for college with that, although it can certainly help. And you know what, if any teenager puts in that amount of work, and thats the minimum wage, they should get that amount of pay.
Third of all, would I actively advocate for $20 an hour? Progressives have a habit of pushing the envelope. They like to out do each other. $20? More like $25. $25? What about $30. And here's the thing. While the minimum wage is a good thing, at some point you're just gonna drive up the price of everything and cause a wage price spiral. I do think there is a maximum sustainable minimum wage. I dont know exactly where that is, but my comfort zone, the last I studied the subject a few years ago (I think 2021-2023ish?) was like $17-18 an hour. So let's say $20 on the high end now. I mean, $20 is the new $15 (Bernie 2016) more or less. And $16 is the new $12 (Clinton 2016). And $13 is the new $10 (Obama second term). I would probably aim between $15-20 honestly, but $20 is acceptable, albeit at the maximum end of that range. I'm not opposed to it, but idk if I'd actively advocate for it being THAT high. I'd like to cautiously raise it first before being like "let's push the envelope a bit more."
But yeah, the minimum wage is supposed to be high enough to support a family on. It's not intended just for some pimply faced teenager making some fun money. That might be how the right views it, but it's supposed to be a wage for adults working. Teens just happen to benefit from it too.
Now onto social security. There is no such thing as a "minimum payment" for social security. Your check is determined by past contributions to the system. if you didnt work, you get $0. If you worked intermittently part time, you might get a few hundred. The average payment is around $2000. And keep in mind, the system, as currently structured, is probably gonna run out of money in the next decade or two. BECAUSE it's so contribution based, and BECAUSE it pays out more than it takes in, it's kinda running a deficit and when the surplus money runs out, benefits will be cut. This is why progressives wanna raise the tax cap on social security. Now, the average social security payment is around $2k a month. $3200 would be a 60% increase. Can we sustain that? Not without massive tax increases. And think about it, raising taxes on "working age" Americans so seniors can live better? Talk about a recipe for resentment politics. And keep in mind, $3200 is the MINIMUM amount in this meme. Like a guaranteed income. I'm the guaranteed income guy and not even I advocate for stuff that high. My guaranteed income would be around $1333 a month per individual. Although if you have a spouse, you'd get $2666 a month between you. Factor in roughly 80% of your current social security payment (so say $1600 instead of $2000) and your senior would be getting around $2933 a month. Not quite $3200, but close. That's an average, not a minimum.
The fact is, we can't reasonable sustain a $3200 a month UBI. Not per individual. Now, if you get $1333 per adult, and then throw a couple of kids into the mix at around $450 a month, well, you can get around $3566 for a family of four. That's close to the proposed $20 minimum wage. For a family. And that's a decent amount I think. I wouldnt wanna push it. That's a floor. And your teenager under 18 would get...$450 a month. Is that that "fair". Does that resolve this weird resentment based contradiction of the system for you people? Like why hate teenagers in the first place? You put in the work, you get paid. That's the point. It's the incentive structure of capitalism. Yeah, we can talk minimums. ANd honestly, I love that some republicans are talking about MINIMUM incomes for people. Keep going with that logic, just like I did when I left conservatism. Maybe one day you'll end up being a UBI stan like me. And you'll advocate for a guaranteed minimum income for ALL Americans, regardless of work effort, while seniors still get their social security to some degree (and generally get a net pay raise), and people can earn $20 in the market place regardless of age. Maybe some teenager can make $800 in fun money working 10 hours a week, while a 30 year old with a family can make $3200 full time. Even then, full time minimum wage jobs barely exist any more, so it's more like, they'd work 25 hours a week at one job making $2000 a month, and then working 15 at another earning $1500 a month, and then they dont get healthcare. Yeah. I wanna give them healthcare too. Which is why i support a public option.
Again. I know this was at best some weird misguided conservative logic, and at worst, a malicious statement intended to keep the working class fighting amongst themselves and to argue against positive changes like a higher minimum wage, but yeah. It's almost like I have answers to these things. Detailed answers. And I can put numbers to my ideas and justify my policy decisions. If you like my ideas. Maybe you should run for president on them. Or maybe I should. Honestly, I don't think I'd be able to hack campaigning but yeah. That's my own answer to these questions, straight from my own internal ideology that has already MATHed (to use a Yang term) all of these things out.
EDIT: I also wanted to address the whole "but I work so hard, why should someone else get something for free" thing. Because you get it too. Under a UBI, everyone is subject to the same rules and gets the same UBI. What differs is peoples' incomes from work. Someone who works 0 hours a week will ONLY get a UBI. Someone who works 40 would get that UBI + whatever wages they get. Yeah, they'd pay more in taxes on those wages. I estimate 20 percentage points. So your minimum wage guy making $3200 a month will pay back $640 in extra taxes....while getting $1333 back. And that's assuming they're single and live alone. Your typical household is gonna be probably 2 adults or 2 adults + 1 child so you'd get a lot more back. Quite frankly, 71% of income earners and around 78-84% of families depending on household makeup last I looked would benefit from my proposal. So if you resent that person not working, odds are youre allowing your misplaced anger to fight against your own best interests.
And if you are in that top 16-29% or whatever who pays more taxes...well...you're relatively well off. And while I get resenting me for wanting to tax you to give it to someone who "deserves it" less in your meritocratic mind...the truth is, you're still gonna be well off afterwards. Elon musk would still be a billionaire under my plan. And your $500k income earning family will pay an extra $100k in taxes, and probably still get back the same $30k or so depending on household size like everyone else. Is anyone gonna shed a tear a $500k income earner now gets something like $416k or $430k in income instead? And yes, I know there are other taxes, but still, point is, you're still rich. I don't really care if you're mad. Youre still living far better than the rest of us anyway. The wealthy are still wealthy, and the rest of us are better off. And to do a little resentment politics of my own: if you can barely live in $400k instead of $500k, how tf do you expect someone to live on a $40k or so minimum wage (what around $20 an hour is), or on a $16k a year UBI? Like, really, you're making 12x that wage, or like 30x that minimum income, and you're complaining about higher taxes? This is why I take the FDR: "and I welcome their hatred" mindset toward these people. Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer. You wanna hate me, hate me, but the fact is my life would make the vast majority of peoples' lives better, and if you're one of the wealthy people harmed by this, I could literally care less.
No comments:
Post a Comment