I was actually thinking the other days minimum wage laws should be structured this way, so I’m glad to hear that some places like California have already done this: minimum wage laws called “living wages” based on indices (which are in turn based on the average cost of things like bread, gas, etc.). Not being an economist, I’m sure there’s a bit of a concern of the dog eating his own tail here as higher minimum wages mean higher prices on items which mean higher minimum wages, etc.

But it’s simple common decency. If you take the cost of certain necessities and create an index, and use a formula to say the average lower class family has X people in it and Y people bringing in a check, then they should make Z% of the index per hour. Each year it could be adjusted. I could even see it varying by region.

The sad truth is this will never pass in the U.S. for political reasons as the rich pat each other on the back and give themselves tax breaks. That, and it would bring a horrifying amount of equality to the poor which would shock the upper crust. True, minimum wages would probably climb significantly because quite frankly too many families try to make it on minimum wage and live in squalor. And the price of many items would climb, causing another slight wage increase for them.

The whole thing would eventually settle out and we could all go to bed at night feeling a little better about ourselves.

The counter arguments that doing so would mean small employers would be put out of business and would just hire fewer people are weak and try to dodge around a truth about the businesses and products in question: the middle and upper classes enjoy these products and services at prices cheaper than they ethically should be able to.

Yes, doing this would mean the average middle class American family would have a slightly smaller house (although this ties into the issues around immigration and getting migrant workers legal status and legal benefits like decent wages - your house would easily cost 2 or 3x what it did if you didn’t basically have slaves build it for dirt cheap wages, my house included). And perhaps you’d have to spend a little more of your fun money on groceries than before. Perhaps some frivolous businesses would go bankrupt as they could no longer afford to offer you dirt cheap luxuries only because of dirt cheap labor.

The one argument that is valid against this is the simple fact of a global economy where many countries have even more deplorable working conditions (and wages) than we do: make all workers in the U.S. have a tolerable wage and life and more things will be made outside the U.S. in sweatshops, etc. Not sure what the solution is for that. To an extent it is unavoidable, but it’s also a bit extremist. The reality is many service positions can’t be outsourced (I can’t order a burger from a guy in Mexico), and my house has to be built here in the U.S. Also, we could easily pass restrictions on imported products that would require the country of origin to have fair labor laws, which could be gradually phased in industry by industry over time.

The Blog | Liberty Hill: Can Grocery Employees Afford Groceries? | The Huffington Post