HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Is there a compromise to ...

Sat Mar 6, 2021, 11:18 PM

Is there a compromise to be had on the $15/hr miniumum wage?

Is there a compromise that can be done to mollify the Bernie and AOC crowd on the minimum wage or is it an all or nothing proposition?

I think about people making $8/hr that could use a raise yesterday. Sure, maybe not $15.00, but going from $8 to $12 is a huge deal, at least where I live. I understand if you live in San Francisco, it's peanuts, but in most places a $4 or $5 raise per hour is a BFD. I'm of the opinion is that something is better than nothing. Folks making $8.50/hr know that standing on your principles isn't going to pay the bills.

Is there something that can be done to push this through or do we just wait until the next election, and then the election after that, and after that like we have been doing for the past 15 years?

43 replies, 2292 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 43 replies Author Time Post
Reply Is there a compromise to be had on the $15/hr miniumum wage? (Original post)
Wanderlust988 Mar 2021 OP
JI7 Mar 2021 #1
jimfields33 Mar 2021 #30
dsc Mar 2021 #37
Kaleva Mar 2021 #41
JI7 Mar 2021 #2
Wanderlust988 Mar 2021 #4
Mr.Bill Mar 2021 #5
leftstreet Mar 2021 #3
Wanderlust988 Mar 2021 #6
leftstreet Mar 2021 #7
wellst0nev0ter Mar 2021 #8
Wanderlust988 Mar 2021 #9
wellst0nev0ter Mar 2021 #10
Wanderlust988 Mar 2021 #12
wellst0nev0ter Mar 2021 #13
dansolo Mar 2021 #42
wellst0nev0ter Mar 2021 #43
NurseJackie Mar 2021 #19
wellst0nev0ter Mar 2021 #32
NurseJackie Mar 2021 #33
wellst0nev0ter Mar 2021 #34
NurseJackie Mar 2021 #38
wellst0nev0ter Mar 2021 #39
NurseJackie Mar 2021 #40
Celerity Mar 2021 #11
betsuni Mar 2021 #14
Celerity Mar 2021 #16
betsuni Mar 2021 #21
WHITT Mar 2021 #15
Celerity Mar 2021 #17
Demsrule86 Mar 2021 #23
Demsrule86 Mar 2021 #24
TheFarseer Mar 2021 #18
Demsrule86 Mar 2021 #25
NurseJackie Mar 2021 #20
Demsrule86 Mar 2021 #22
George II Mar 2021 #26
gratuitous Mar 2021 #27
KentuckyWoman Mar 2021 #28
Celerity Mar 2021 #29
karynnj Mar 2021 #31
Blue_true Mar 2021 #36
Blue_true Mar 2021 #35

Response to Wanderlust988 (Original post)

Sat Mar 6, 2021, 11:21 PM

1. Focus on Passing it at the state level.

California ,FLorida and some other states already passed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #1)

Sun Mar 7, 2021, 02:37 PM

30. Good idea

However, until states are fully on board. The federal government should pass 11 dollars and then ensure a Cost of Living attached to the Social Security Cost of Living would prevent this from ever needing to be brought up again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #1)

Sun Mar 7, 2021, 08:43 PM

37. that works for states with initiatives and/or a real possibility of electing a Dem lege

my state only has referenda and a GOP lege for likely quite some time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 8, 2021, 06:01 AM

41. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wanderlust988 (Original post)

Sat Mar 6, 2021, 11:22 PM

2. WHat do you mean mollify bernie and aoc crowd ?

They either have the votes or not. They did in the house . Pelosi was able to pass it. Sanders couldn't do it in the Senate .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 6, 2021, 11:25 PM

4. The Senate won't pass what they passed in the House

I think 8 Dems voted down the $15 min wage amendment. But Bernie won't accept anything less out of principle. And he has not offered a way out of the mess in the Senate. He surely makes it sound like it's all or nothing. Would he accept $14.50? We don't know and he doesn't sound like he's budging.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 6, 2021, 11:25 PM

5. Different rules and a thinner majority in the Senate. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wanderlust988 (Original post)

Sat Mar 6, 2021, 11:22 PM

3. Ask Sinema. Minimum wage in her state is 12 bucks

Would SHE be willing to compromise?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #3)

Sat Mar 6, 2021, 11:26 PM

6. Manchin already said he'd vote for $11/hr

But in a negotiation, he'd probably go up from there. I think we'd probably even have Republican votes for $12 or something, but would Bernie accept that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wanderlust988 (Reply #6)

Sat Mar 6, 2021, 11:31 PM

7. Did they submit any bill amendments?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wanderlust988 (Original post)

Sat Mar 6, 2021, 11:37 PM

8. $15 IS the compromise

 

It should be $24 today due to inflation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wellst0nev0ter (Reply #8)

Sat Mar 6, 2021, 11:42 PM

9. It's not tied to inflation

That's not a legitimate point and gets us nowhere when we have razor thin margins in Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wanderlust988 (Reply #9)

Sat Mar 6, 2021, 11:45 PM

10. Compromising on $15 is even more dangerous

 

Biden campaigned on that message, and people voted for him.

Keep the promise, or lose next year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wellst0nev0ter (Reply #10)

Sun Mar 7, 2021, 03:07 AM

12. You make my point...it's always about the next election

We've been doing that song and dance for the last 15 years about the minimum wage and nothing is getting done and NO ONE is getting a raise, unless it's done by the states. At some point and time, a deal has be to be cut to raise it. $15/hr is a pipe dream in this Congress. Next Congress will probably have Speaker McCarthy because historically speaking, the ruling party loses seats. We shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of pretty damned good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wanderlust988 (Reply #12)

Sun Mar 7, 2021, 03:21 AM

13. "Perfect be the enemy of the good"

 

That was the Obamacare era slogan that lost us power in 2010 and 2012.

Because Dems were too busy appeasing the right that they failed to deliver big and deliver on time.

Enough with the games. Get the Democrats in line, pass the bill, and win.

If you fuck around here and kick the can down the road, we will lose next year and in 2024.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wellst0nev0ter (Reply #13)

Mon Mar 8, 2021, 06:20 AM

42. The ACA did help a lot of people

If progressives actually backed it instead of rallying against it because it didn't go far enough then the media wouldn't have been able to frame the issue of so many people opposing it. Progressives helped to torpedo public support for the ACA, and then won't even acknowledge their role in our losses in 2010.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dansolo (Reply #42)

Mon Mar 8, 2021, 08:10 PM

43. What progressive rallied against the ACA?

 

Look at the Democrats who originally voted against the ACA: it's a literal who's-who of conservacrats.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/88211-house-roll-call-on-healthcare-bill-34-dems-vote-against

Progressives have always been loyal to both Obama and Biden when it counted. Conservative dems campaigned against the ACA—and still lost.

Sure the ACA is popular now, but the way moderates twisted the bill into a Frankenstein monster guaranteed that Democrats would not reap any political benefits from the bill when they needed it.

Key parts of the ACA were not implemented until years later, when the Dems lost both the House and the Senate. We can't afford to make the same mistake again.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wellst0nev0ter (Reply #10)

Sun Mar 7, 2021, 08:12 AM

19. LOL!

Keep the promise, or lose next year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #19)

Sun Mar 7, 2021, 07:24 PM

32. "Keeping campaign promises is for idiots"

 

Right?

If you're not sure, listen to Jim Clyburn:


?s=20

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wellst0nev0ter (Reply #32)

Sun Mar 7, 2021, 07:49 PM

33. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #33)

Sun Mar 7, 2021, 08:32 PM

34. LOL@Jim Clyburn

 

Didn't know you were so dismissive of him

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wellst0nev0ter (Reply #34)

Sun Mar 7, 2021, 09:07 PM

38. Guess again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #38)

Sun Mar 7, 2021, 09:20 PM

39. Already got it right

 

LOL@Jim Clyburn

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wellst0nev0ter (Reply #39)

Mon Mar 8, 2021, 05:55 AM

40. Wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wanderlust988 (Original post)

Sun Mar 7, 2021, 02:49 AM

11. Not really, unless we either flush the filibuster (not going to happen) OR modify the filibuster

Last edited Sat Mar 27, 2021, 01:18 AM - Edit history (1)

in such a way that we can get 11 usd through (Manchin will not go much about that, MAYBE he goes for 12 usd IF it spread out over 3 or 4 years). The problem there, of course is will Manchin, Sinema, and Feinstein even go for modifications? I can see Sinema and Feinstein caving on a type of modification, but Manchin will be SO hard to pull along.

Probably zero to very little chance 10 Rethugs break a filibuster on 11, 12 usd, and 15 usd is a pipe dream.

We MIGHT get 10 Rethugs to vote for cloture on 9 usd, maybe 10 usd, but that is doubtful atm, though not impossible (15 usd is impossible, even if the filibuster poofed, Manchin will not vote for it).

10 usd (or less) is a fucking joke, as by the time it kicks in, it will be worth LESS than 7.25usd was in 2009, plus it starts the clock on another 12+ year cycle for the next increase, at which time (if we are talking the mid 2030's, that 10 usd will worth sub 6 usd for sure, very likely sub 5 usd in versus 7.25 per hour in 2009.


As usual, here are the modification options


https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/03/02/manchin-filibuster-never-sinema/

Instead of naming and shaming them, Democrats might consider looking at what Manchin and Sinema like about the filibuster. Sinema recently said, “Retaining the legislative filibuster is not meant to impede the things we want to get done. Rather, it’s meant to protect what the Senate was designed to be. I believe the Senate has a responsibility to put politics aside and fully consider, debate, and reach compromise on legislative issues that will affect all Americans.” Last year, Manchin said, “The minority should have input — that’s the whole purpose for the Senate. If you basically do away with the filibuster altogether for legislation, you won’t have the Senate. You’re a glorified House. And I will not do that.” If you take their views at face value, the goal is to preserve some rights for the Senate minority, with the aim of fostering compromise. The key, then, is to find ways not to eliminate the filibuster on legislation but to reform it to fit that vision. Here are some options:

Make the minority do the work.

Currently, it takes 60 senators to reach cloture — to end debate and move to a vote on final passage of a bill. The burden is on the majority, a consequence of filibuster reform in 1975, which moved the standard from two-thirds of senators present and voting to three-fifths of the entire Senate. Before that change, if the Senate went around-the-clock, filibustering senators would have to be present in force. If, for example, only 75 senators showed up for a cloture vote, 50 of them could invoke cloture and move to a final vote. After the reform, only a few senators in the minority needed to be present to a request for unanimous consent and to keep the majority from closing debate by forcing a quorum call. The around-the-clock approach riveted the public, putting a genuine spotlight on the issues. Without it, the minority’s delaying tactics go largely unnoticed, with little or no penalty for obstruction, and no requirement actually to debate the issue. One way to restore the filibuster’s original intent would be requiring at least two-fifths of the full Senate, or 40 senators, to keep debating instead requiring 60 to end debate. The burden would fall to the minority, who’d have to be prepared for several votes, potentially over several days and nights, including weekends and all-night sessions, and if only once they couldn’t muster 40 — the equivalent of cloture — debate would end, making way for a vote on final passage of the bill in question.

Go back to the “present and voting” standard.

A shift to three-fifths of the Senate “present and voting” would similarly require the minority to keep most of its members around the Senate when in session. If, for example, the issue in question were voting rights, a Senate deliberating on the floor, 24 hours a day for several days, would put a sharp spotlight on the issue, forcing Republicans to publicly justify opposition to legislation aimed at protecting the voting rights of minorities. Weekend Senate sessions would cause Republicans up for reelection in 2022 to remain in Washington instead of freeing them to go home to campaign. In a three-fifths present and voting scenario, if only 80 senators showed up, only 48 votes would be needed to get to cloture. Add to that a requirement that at all times, a member of the minority party would have to be on the floor, actually debating, and the burden would be even greater, while delivering what Manchin and Sinema say they want — more debate.

Narrow the supermajority requirement.

Another option would be to follow in the direction of the 1975 reform, which reduced two-thirds (67 out of a full 100) to three-fifths (60 out of 100), and further reduce the threshold to 55 senators — still a supermajority requirement, but a slimmer one. Democrats might have some ability to get five Republicans to support their desired outcomes on issues such as voting rights, universal background checks for gun purchases or a path to citizenship for Dreamers. A reduction to 55, if coupled with a present-and-voting standard would establish even more balance between majority and minority. In a 50-50 Senate, and with the GOP strategy clearly being united opposition to almost all Democratic priorities, Biden and Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) need the support of Manchin and Sinema on a daily basis. They won’t be persuaded by pressure campaigns from progressive groups or from members of Congress. But they might consider reforms that weaken the power of filibusters and give Democrats more leverage to enact their policies, without pursuing the dead end of abolishing the rule altogether.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wanderlust988 (Original post)

Sun Mar 7, 2021, 06:19 AM

14. All or nothing $15 magic number purity test in the past; incrementalism okay now.

Now that one is, you know, "establishment."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #14)

Sun Mar 7, 2021, 07:49 AM

16. once again you are pushing the same flawed angle (in regards to a mufti-year phase-in that Sanders

has always used in his wage increase bills)

You tried the same thing on another thread and were exposed for a false framing (trying to say this latest 2021 bill's multi-year phase-in is some new stance, and thus all of a sudden now Sander is ok with incrementalism). IMHO you were clearly trying to imply he is a hypocrite or something something, and using erroneous info/framings to do so.

Now you try that same factually-challenged gambit again, knowing it is a flawed positing as the statement itself about his wage increase bills is simply not true.

It really is a bad look to wilfully trot out the same false frame again, especially after you were already shown that what you said is not factually true. It is also very divisive and hardy is conducive to any sort of big tent paradigm that simply has to be our Party coalition's goal if we are to maintain a majority in Congress.

You and others love to weaponise the term 'purity test' (you just tossed it out yet again in the very post I am replying too) and try to slate the left quarter to third of the party with it ad nauseum, but you are the ones who actually have the purity test stratagem out and about for a good sabre rattle far more often, ie. nothing to left of some utterly arbitrary and ambiguous ideological line that you yourselves draw is allowed to pass without having multiple whacks taken at it, ofttimes with very problematic framings and incorrect info.

This isn't Centre-Left/Centrist/Moderate Conservative-Only Democratic Underground the last time I checked, no matter how much some seem to want it as such. Alienate the left quarter to a third of our Party and watch the Congressional majorities and POTUS go poof.

It is so ironic that I am not even in the Sanderite sphere when it comes to American politics (I had the very first post in the Buttigieg group almost 2 years ago), but I truly feel the need to defend that part of our party against unfair attacks (on the elected members).

I am NOT going to defend non Dem radical bomb-throwers like many in the 'Red Rose' Twitter spheres, or open (and actual) socialist (and even containing some real Trotskyite and Stalinist communist elements) orgs like the DSA and those at Jacobin Magazine, Current Affairs, etc etc., but I also will not constantly try to link elected Dems with every single shitty word that comes out of those groups' mouths. I am all about maintaining the big tent coalition, without which, the Rethugs will run riot and turn America in a true fascist hellscape.


Sanders' wage increase bills have been used incremental phase-ins for decades now


Here is one from 2 years ago.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/150







and one from 20 years ago (h/t to Donkees)

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15189061

Rep. Sanders H.R.2812 - Minimum Wage Restoration Act 2001

Rep. Sanders H.R.2812 - Minimum Wage Restoration Act 2001
Sponsor: Rep. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT-At Large] (Introduced 08/02/2001)
Committees: House - Education and the Workforce
H.R.2812 - Minimum Wage Restoration Act

Minimum Wage Restoration Act - Amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to increase the minimum wage (currently $5.15 per hour): (1) to $6.65, for 2002; (2) to $8.15, for 2003; and (3) by indexing to the cost of living, in the same manner as benefits are indexed under the Social Security Act, for 2004 and thereafter.

(Just one example)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celerity (Reply #16)

Sun Mar 7, 2021, 08:55 AM

21. No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wanderlust988 (Original post)

Sun Mar 7, 2021, 07:48 AM

15. Just

Jam it into the next defense bill. If Manchin or Sinema put up any resistance, Biden should say, OK lets take the defense bill apart and we won't be sending any defense funding to WV and AZ.

It will pass.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WHITT (Reply #15)

Sun Mar 7, 2021, 07:57 AM

17. even if all Dems agree, we still may have to overcome a potential Rethug filibuster, as they are

crazy enough to play that insane game of chicken I fear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WHITT (Reply #15)

Sun Mar 7, 2021, 09:01 AM

23. We just passed a big defense bill in December.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WHITT (Reply #15)

Sun Mar 7, 2021, 09:01 AM

24. We just passed a big defense bill in December.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wanderlust988 (Original post)

Sun Mar 7, 2021, 08:09 AM

18. Yes

Just raise it to something lower than 15. Very easy. Some republicans even want to raise it - just not by 107%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheFarseer (Reply #18)

Sun Mar 7, 2021, 09:03 AM

25. No Republicans will vote for the minimum and give Democrats any credit.

They just refused to vote en masse for a relief bill that has 75% approval.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wanderlust988 (Original post)

Sun Mar 7, 2021, 08:24 AM

20. This feels like a good time to remind everyone that @RepTerriSewell introduced a minimum wage bill..

Is there a compromise that can be done to mollify the Bernie and AOC crowd on the minimum wage or is it an all or nothing proposition?
As we've seen time and time again, the "all or nothing" philosophy never works. Those who espouse this way of thinking always walk away with NOTHING, and for some odd reason, many express pride in making NO PROGRESS at all. It's as though the "effort" is more important than the actual RESULTS. That kind of stubbornness and pride only serves to remain stationary and it preserves the status quo. So why does it seem to be such a popular tactic when it continually fails? Ego? Vanity? I don't know. I think I'd rather compromise and have have a half a loaf (or even a meager SLICE) of bread instead of boasting of my "effort" and delivering an empty plate.

In any case, check this out. We need a different approach, and this looked interesting to me.




This feels like a good time to remind everyone that @RepTerriSewell introduced a minimum wage bill that ties the wage floor to the cost of living and purchasing power of each region. This bill has the support of many moderate swing-district Democrats.

https://sewell.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/sewell-leads-democrats-introducing-regional-minimum-wage-legislation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wanderlust988 (Original post)

Sun Mar 7, 2021, 08:57 AM

22. No, we don't have 60 votes. It can't be done in reconciliation. Thus, it can't be done...Sen.

Sanders knew this. He has been in the Senate for many years. Now, can we please stop complaining about this. We need more Senator and to hold the house...if the AOC crowd doesn't support Democrats in 22, my guess is the party will be forced to move right to get the votes needed...and this crowd will have less not more powers. They can't win statewide races in red and purple states so if they succeed in primarying someone...we lose the seat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wanderlust988 (Original post)

Sun Mar 7, 2021, 12:35 PM

26. The solution is simple. Get a Representative to introduce a bill and then get a Senator....

....to introduce a bill, get them through committee and to the floor for votes.

While waiting, do NOT berate colleagues from which they need support. Meet with colleagues, reason with them, and convince them this is the best way to go. Be diplomatic, not demeaning.

Tweets don't get votes. Emails don't get votes. Reasoning with colleagues gets votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wanderlust988 (Original post)

Sun Mar 7, 2021, 01:13 PM

27. Sure; everyone who wants a $15/hr minimum wage gets it

Everyone who doesn't want $15/hr minimum wage gets the lower wage. That way everyone gets what they want!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wanderlust988 (Original post)

Sun Mar 7, 2021, 01:45 PM

28. Yes

$11 2021
$13 2022
$15 2023

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KentuckyWoman (Reply #28)

Sun Mar 7, 2021, 02:12 PM

29. that's is an even more aggressive phase-in slope than the House bill provisions that were removed

Sanders, for decades, always had a phase-in period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wanderlust988 (Original post)

Sun Mar 7, 2021, 02:43 PM

31. I wonder if the best possible minimum wage might be tied to cost of living in the state

This would mean that West Virgina would have a lower minimum than NY. One problem with this is that COS differs throughout a state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #31)

Sun Mar 7, 2021, 08:42 PM

36. The law passed by Florida voters does just that once the wage hits $15

in 2024. IMO, that is the only sane way to do it. The Florida law was marshaled by the big time attorney John Morgan, a Biden supporter and the man that got medical pot passed in Florida (now I can turn on my car radio without hearing a medical pot ad, and state Doctors have largely embraced the law).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wanderlust988 (Original post)

Sun Mar 7, 2021, 08:37 PM

35. He is an ass in a lot of ways.

But the best proposal that I have read about is from Senator Josh Hawley. And he seems to be serious about it. His proposal would raise the wage by just over $4 per hour immediately, then in increments of $1 per year for the next four years to take it to $16. I don’t know whether his proposal indexes it to inflation once it reaches $16, like the proposal Florida voters approved does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread