This is why I support policies and legislation at a local and state level, as opposed to the federal level.  Of course big cities lean toward liberal policies.  Housing, food, taxes, etc are all much more difficult and the safety net should be different.

I rent my old house to a couple for $400/ month.  Whether you rent, or buy around here it's never going to compare to big city prices.  I can buy food from local farmers for less than you'd pay in a grocery store.  I've compared electric bills to in-laws bills that live in Washington, and I don't know how they do it.  I water my lawn regularly, and my water bill is never over $35.

We live in two different worlds, and our policies are coming from the same government.  Seems silly.

 

Well clearly New England is not the place to look for a first home! Wow. Maybe I'll have to consider job opportunities outside the Boston area...

Which is why $15/hour might seem too much for McDonald employees where you live, but not necessarily to those living in NYC, no?  Not saying they should be paid $15/hour but that it might not be much at all in a big city where you cannot rent an apartment for less than $1000/month.

This is why I support policies and legislation at a local and state level, as opposed to the federal level.  Of course big cities lean toward liberal policies.  Housing, food, taxes, etc are all much more difficult and the safety net should be different.

 

I rent my old house to a couple for $400/ month.  Whether you rent, or buy around here it's never going to compare to big city prices.  I can buy food from local farmers for less than you'd pay in a grocery store.  I've compared electric bills to in-laws bills that live in Washington, and I don't know how they do it.  I water my lawn regularly, and my water bill is never over $35.

 

We live in two different worlds, and our policies are coming from the same government.  Seems silly.

 

We live in two different worlds, and our policies are coming from the same government.  Seems silly.

Disagree. We are still one country. I think it makes sense for the federal government to set the minimum standards for wages, safety, environmental, etc. Nothing prevents localities from setting higher standards for themselves if they see fit.

Then, the most populated areas end up with the most representation and they set the rules for those of us who don't live that life and don't want it.  There's a reason that the 10th Amendment and the Constitution exist.  Let the Federal Government deal with defense, and interstate commerce, etc.  Then, let the states figure out what works best for them.  That way, if I don't like what my state is doing I can go to Michigan, or Ohio, or Illinois, or Kentucky, etc.  Freedom is about choices.

 

Disagree. We are still one country. I think it makes sense for the federal government to set the minimum standards for wages, safety, environmental, etc. Nothing prevents localities from setting higher standards for themselves if they see fit.

 

Disagree. We are still one country. I think it makes sense for the federal government to set the minimum standards for wages, safety, environmental, etc. Nothing prevents localities from setting higher standards for themselves if they see fit.

Where does the government control or set minimum standards for safety? I work in a very dangerous field, and I can tell you first hand that the company I work for is much safer than other companies that do the same thing, but we go above and beyond to ensure our safety. OSHA is in more control than the govt. when it comes to safety. In all honesty, I would not work for another company in the steel industry, there's too many people getting hurt, or even worse.

The problem is when the salaries are low but the cost of living is high, as here (PR is worse, so I am not complaining).  And most people know my stance; I just try not to engage in political arguments because I don't want to piss people off, haha!

 

But I think we can both agree that it depends on where you live.  I've gone to places where the cost of living is low and the salaries are lower, yes, but there are places like NY, SF, here, where the cost of living is high but the salaries of some are not high enough.

 

I think of it as what the market will bear. In Boston the cost of living is very high, and lower in the surrounding burbs but you still have to get into the city somehow so I bet most part time folks in the city start at $10.

As far as cost of living changes from 1 city to another, any corporate person who gets transferred from our area to another city with a salary increase is living large when they move. Boston is easily in the top 10 cost of living wise so very few cities aren't a net gain for them.

 

Where does the government control or set minimum standards for safety? I work in a very dangerous field, and I can tell you first hand that the company I work for is much safer than other companies that do the same thing, but we go above and beyond to ensure our safety. OSHA is in more control than the govt. when it comes to safety. In all honesty, I would not work for another company in the steel industry, there's too many people getting hurt, or even worse.

 That is my point. OSHA is a federal government agency. If your company wants to exceed OSHA standards, that is their choice. But I am glad OSHA exists; I am sure more people were injured or killed in the steel industry back in the pre-regulatory Andrew Carnegie days. And I don't see why employee safety standards need to vary state-to-state. 

 

Awood, that was a very insightful post about the different costs of living.  $15 may possibly be the right minimum in NYC, whereas it would be a princely sum here in Buffalo and would sink many small to medium sized businesses.

 But it seems that leaving it up to the states would not resolve this issue. In NY state government, I think you have the same problem as Awood complained about in the federal government. (I have known a lot of Buffalonians & they complain incessantly about NYC...)

Then, the most populated areas end up with the most representation and they set the rules for those of us who don't live that life and don't want it.  There's a reason that the 10th Amendment and the Constitution exist.  Let the Federal Government deal with defense, and interstate commerce, etc.  Then, let the states figure out what works best for them.  That way, if I don't like what my state is doing I can go to Michigan, or Ohio, or Illinois, or Kentucky, etc.  Freedom is about choices.

 

Awood, the only thing we disagee about is what constitutes "etc."!

I don't see what is wrong with the current setup...

1. Federal Government sets a Minimum Wage Standard

2. Any state COULD set their own Minimum Wage Standard if they so desired...any county could do the same

3. Any company can decide to pay their employees more than the Federal Minimum Wage Standard

4. If you don't like it you are free to protest, unionize, go find somewhere else to work

(Note: In a true free market economy...socialist things like Minimum Wage Standards and unionizing would not be options...it could be worse)