Talk:Minimum wage in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Current law

I'm pretty sure the first sentence in the article is wrong--the current minimum wage law is the Fair Labor Standards Act, with the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 only amending it. I haven't done any research, so I may be wrong! --Lalala666 15:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think both statements are correct. Jon 14:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Lalala is correct; the Fair Labor Standards Act governs the standards of employment practices, including wages. The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 was simply the Act put in place to actually change the minimum wage. In other words, the Fair Labor Standards Act makes sure that employees are paid the current minimum wage, but it takes an Act of Congress to change that amount. I have corrected the wording. MplsNarco 09:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Updating Needed

This page is in need of an update. There are a few areas where it talks about what will happen on a date that is now in the past. In addition, since the change on 24 July 2007, we need to make sure all the state minimums are correct and that the map represents the current situation correctly. I will work on the update/cleanup, and meanwhile, if anyone sees any information regarding new state minimums, leave a note here. Thanks. MplsNarco 10:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Map has been updated. Here is a list of state minimum wages (though they may be superseded by reliable news reports): [1] Thanks for helping out, these pages are especially prone to vandalism and obsolescence, and I'm not particularly vigilant. -- Lalala666 12:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've read quite a bit about the pros and cons, though I don't think the cons had as strong an argument since only the minimum wage is affected; in other words, it doesn't slide higher wages up. I'm not sure whether or not that is an assumed fact. Brian Pearson 00:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Like the link for #8 in the references is no longer good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.106.192.35 (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Lower than Fed Minimum Wage?

According to the map, at least 3 states are shown as having a minimum wage below the federal minimum wage. This implies that state minimum wages take precedence over the federal minimum wage, and thus the federal minimum wage only applies to states that have no statutory minimum wages at all. Is this correct? 144.226.230.36 (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Workers must be paid the higher of the state or federal law. So if a state requires $5.15, and federal requires $5.85, the federal law wins. I think Clinton was the one who allowed states to set wages higher than the federal. Note that in some cases, the state law covers classes of workers that the federal law doesn't, so even though the wage is lower, it might cover some federally exempt workers. Lalala666 (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was an act of Congress passed during the first 2 years of Clinton's presidency that allowed state laws to have a higher rate for workers subject to federal. (States were always free to set whatever rate they want for state workers not subject to federal law). There aren't that many workers that are exempt from federal law and yet non-exempt for their state law, but when it happens the state law applies. Jon (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

The criticism of the minimum wage section needs to use citations. The author says "empirical evidence," but he essentially made something up, or plagarized someone's work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.189.148 (talk) 02:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the criticism section says that minimum wage can increase crime. After having a look at the paper cited, I decided to remove the reference (and put it in another section, possibly) because the paper says quite the opposite: "There appears to be a stronger negative relationship between crime and low pay in the period surrounding the minimum wage introduction. This is a robust finding for most crimes (i.e. except for the much noisier data on violent crimes) and is in line with the idea that the altering of economic incentives brought about by the introduction of the minimum wage may well have caused individuals on the margins of crime to desist from committing crime." --Mattia Landoni (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought to second the above observation. The wiki entry critcism suggests that minimum wage increases crime. And this article is on "Minimum wage in the US", the evaluation was on the UK labour market. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.250.224.20 (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Outdated info and weasel words

This article is STILL badly in need of updating. Furthermore, there are several instances of weasel verbage, which I have identified with inline tags:

• Many states and municipalities have minimum wages higher than this...—(see List of U.S. minimum wages) doesn't qualify as a citation
• Many politicians in the United States advocate linking the minimum wage to the Consumer Price Index...
• Minimum wage laws have been criticized for discouraging economic growth and going against market laws that set the salaries for workers.

I'm going to leave a note on the WikiProject Economics talk page and get this on its radar. momoricks (make my day) 03:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that List of U.S. minimum wages be merged into Minimum wage in the United States. Both articles are quite small, so there is no size issue. This page is 17k. The list is 24k. So total they will be about 40k.--Metallurgist (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

no way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.52.134 (talk) 07:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes The same list as well as the same writing are on the List of U.S. minimum wages page so it makes perfect sense. I can go ahead and do it right now.

image of state minimum wages out of sync with the detailed table on the state minimum wage page

This appears to be the same image as that found in the subarticle of list of minimum wages by state. Multiple states are coded blue (state minimum wage same as federal minimum wage) where according to the detailed table on that article the state minimum wage is now less than the federal minimum wage. A couple of examples are Missouri (State minimum wage of $7.05) & Florida (State minimum wage of $7.21) where the Federal minimum wage crossed above the states on July 24, 2009 to $7.25. Jon (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Time to update the map again...That-Vela-Fella (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Never edited before, so not sure how this is supposed to go... The text of the article calls out a federal minimum wage of $8.25 once in the first paragraph and twice under "Federal Minimum Wage", but the chart shows $7.25. The chart is correct; not sure where the other number came from or why they disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taddus (talk • contribs) 03:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Wages of waiters and waitresses

Under "Jobs affected by the Minimum Wage", the listing for wait staff giving a $3.14 wage is misleading because they receive tips. I also know that some (not sure about federal) minimum wage laws require that wait staff receive at least the statutory minimum wage after adding in tips. I think the same would apply to a few other occupations in the list such as gaming dealers and bartenders. I'm not sure of a good way to include this in the table though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgwicklund (talk • contribs) 22:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Update Needed

I'm not sure how to edit the map, but starting on 09/01/07 the minimum wage in NH rose to 6.50$, and will rise again to 7.25$ next September. could someone take care of this please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.121.232 (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The map needs to be updated. Minimum wage rose above federal rate in several states today (1/1/14). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.127.238 (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Prior Law Section - Plagiarism?

The first half of the "Prior Laws" section of this article is plagiarized and incorrectly attributed - the first 4 paragraphs of it appear to be ripped word for word from Klrby R. Cundiff, "Minimum Wage," in Kenneth Warren, ed, Encyclopedia of U.S. Campaigns, Elections, and Electoral Behavior (SAGE Publication, 2008). The citations given are not to this text.

The source that is cited (William P. Quigley, "'A Fair Day's Pay For A Fair Day's Work': Time to Raise and Index the Minimum Wage", 27 St. Mary's L. J. 513, 516 (1996)) does not contain the same text.

Fyddlestix (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Can someone confirm that I am reading this right - it appears that the wiki text predates the publication. This version of the wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States&oldid=134222252

Is from 2007, a year prior to the publication of the Encyclopedia. Yet they contain 3-4 paragraphs of identical text... Fyddlestix (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Elements of the relevant passage date as far back as 2005: See here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.206.70 (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Biased use of colors

The image on the page uses green with minimum wage rates higher than the federal rate, and red with minimum wage rates lower. It is quite clear that red is linked to something bad, while green is something good. I would consider changing the colors to be neutral - for instance yellow for high and green for low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.114.182.2 (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

64.25.209.121 clarified that to "higher than the federal law rate" 27 May; Just saying it here so it does not change Talk text of 192 Markbassett (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I will note that the image is Department of Labor so this is following the cite. If there is another source or redo extract of this then suggest that it might remove the concern if the map used the convention of shdes of a single color and white for no data -- e.g dark green for higher pay, medium for federal level, and light green for lower pay. Markbassett (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

First sentence

The article currently opens with "Minimum wage in the United States discusses the ongoing economic and political debates as well as the history of the minimum wage in the United States." This is a bit clunky, as it is not about the topic, but about the article, and uses the phrase that is the title as the subject of the sentence. Wouldn't a better opening read "The minimum wage in the United States is currently $x.yz." Or "The minimum wage in the United States is set by a network of federal, state, and local statutes. The current federal m. w. is $x.yz." ?? Huw Powell (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Balance on Reasons for Controversy

The Reasons for Controversy section explains very well about the view point of Keynesian economists, but fails to incorporate other mainstream schools of thought, such as Neo-Classical, or Monetarist. It would make sense that in order to have a controversy, that there are two or more points of views, and while the Keynesian point of view is well described, other points of view have not been represented sufficiently. Mhaueter (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with this. They mention the long-debunked Card-Krueger study, but not the followup Neumark and Wascher did with better methodology which showed the opposite effect (https://www.nber.org/papers/w5224). They also don't look their meta-study which showed that overall, most MW studies still show disemployment effects, and this is more pronounced the better the study's methodology (https://www.nber.org/papers/w12663). They imply that all modern studies show no disemployment effects, which is absolutely and patently untrue. Shanedk (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

welfare reduction?

Article entirely omits the important and significant discussion about the potential effect of increased wages raising people above poverty levels and a reduction in the welfare rolls and other forms of government assistance.

Problem with this argument is politics. What politician would bring it up - advocates of increased minimum wage would not dare entertain a decrease the outlays to welfare. If my hamburger, gasoline, groceries, movie tickets, and other costs will naturally go up, our taxes should be reduced in kind.12.218.112.230 (talk) 14:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Minimum wage in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070104143218/http://www.indiana.edu:80/~econed/pdffiles/fall03/fuller.pdf to http://www.indiana.edu/~econed/pdffiles/fall03/fuller.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

2016 July. Democratic party platform calls for $15 minimum wage over time

Democratic party platform calls for $15 minimum wage in win for Sanders. July 9, 2016. Fox 32 Chicago.

"the party's 187-member Platform Committee approved an amendment saying an increase from the current federal minimum of $7.25 an hour to $15 should happen 'over time'." --74.83.99.20 (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Section "Countries without minimum wage" seems misplaced here

Fail to see how the information relates to the discussion of MW in the U.S.; rather, it seems as if it belongs on another page with a more general survey of MW world-wide, such as: Minimum wage. Ablaut490 (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree, feel free to make the change if no one has any objections. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The point of the section is to give the wider context. "The USA harvests NN billion bushels corn every year" is not a very meaningful statement to most readers (that are not experts in international agricultural commodities industry), whereas adding "which makes it the second-highest producer compared to other countries in the world, and is equal to the annual corn production of the XX lowest-ranked countries put together" not only gives the reader some sense of scale, but also gives the reader some sense of the place the USA has in the corn world. It is not necessary to have 'list of countries without a minimum wage' here but it should definitely be mentioned that there are NN countries without a minimum wage as of 2016 (and wikilink to the appropriate section of the parent article). It also makes sense to say, in realdollar terms, where the USA is with respect to other countries (or at least compared to other first-world countries). Although this article is about minwage in the USA, it should not therefore ignore minwage practices in the rest of the world, but rather should just couch the international data as relative-to-the-USA, for comparison purposes and illumination of the readership as to the differences between the USA and other countries. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree completely with the IP editor. It only makes sense to put America's MW in perspective by comparing it to that of other countries. The whole long list, however, couldbe spun off into another article or possibly a stand alone list titled, "List of countries without a minimum wage" if thst doesn't exist already. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be spun off into the general article on Minimum wage. The current text just provides the information without making any connection to the US minimum wage. Once someone writes that connection, they can link to the data in the main article. Ablaut490 (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I think just removing it is better, since it was very poorly framed regarding what the source actually says about the situation in those other countries. The Nordic model is not the elimination of the minimum wage, it's the use of strong labor organization and collective bargaining as a replacement for a legislated minimum wage. This is a minimum wage which is supported by legal infrastructure, even if it's not specifically set by legislation. Labor union membership in these countries is very high, bordering on universal, and enrollment is assumed or automatic. Presenting this as being "no minimum wage" is a popular talking point among opponents of minimum wages, but it's not accurate or helpful. This was the main point made by the source used for that section. Grayfell (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Misleading use of statistics

The study linked as a source for "34% agreed with the statement that "Raising the federal minimum wage to $9 per hour would make it noticeably harder for low-skilled workers to find employment", while 56% were either uncertain or disagreed" actually states that only 32% disagreed with statement. That seems deliberately misquoted to lend support to increasing the minimum wage. The other statement from that source "42% agreed with the statement that "...raising the minimum wage to $9 per hour and indexing it to inflation...would be a desirably policy", with 32% uncertain and 11% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing" just seems weasel-y in the first place since its packaging two different policies together. If you look at the "comments" attached to the economists' votes there is at least one (most don't comment) that seems to lend support to indexing to inflation and not the actual increase of the minimum wage. I found the contributor for these obviously misleading paragraphs, is there any way I can report this? This guy seems like he edits a lot of stuff. Jlawrence6809 (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

What, take away our statistics? What's next, no Santa Clause? 24.176.43.70 (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Section Misleading statement?

I'm concerned about the text "'the weight' of economic research shows higher pay doesn’t lead to fewer jobs," used to summarize the opinion of some economists. I believe that they were saying that a *specific modest increase* in the minimum wage at a particular point in time would not lead to fewer jobs, which is a very far cry from saying that higher pay doesn't lead to fewer jobs. I am pretty certain that every economist in the world would agree that a large enough increase in the minimum wage will destroy jobs -- how could it not! There is typically some margin for raising the minimum wage without job loss because of monopsony, but if you exceed this margin, all bets are off.

The lack of specificity in that text concerns me all the more because I have heard the sentiment echoed on forums, e.g. that "it has been shown" that increases in the minimum wage do not cost jobs, *so let's double it!* Unless you have some specific reason for believing that the margin is really that large, this kind of reasoning is dangerous, especially for those with the least skills and the fewest options.

Also note that the margin is almost surely not the same across the country, so while a large jump in the minimum wage might cause no job losses in New York City, it could be quite harmful in rural Alabama.

Or am I confused? AmigoNico (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Nico, ever since Christianity became unhip people have replaced the religion of socialism as the source of their dogma. So verbage that threatens their dogma is quickly changed. 24.176.43.70 (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

History seems kind of sparse

The history section covers legislation and litigation from 1912-1941, then skips ahead to 2009 in the "Recent legislation" section. I think some more detailed history would be a good addition. I haven't checked article history yet to look for deletions. I did find this table, which I think should be boiled down to a graph and included. http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm Thundermaker (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I found this page more informative: https://www.dol.gov/whd/about/history/whdhist.htm -- llywrch (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

States to watch

These states are currently considering increases to their minimum wage laws:

• Utah [2]
• North Carolina [3]
• Pennsylvania [4]
• Illinois [5]

The city council of Baltimore passed a local increase to $15 an hour by 2022, only to have the mayor veto it.[6] -- llywrch (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Minimum wage in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070625194442/http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm to http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Economics effect section could use improvement

The economics effect section is tough to read. It could use a better overall summary paragraph and better summary passages in each sub-section. Not sure if I have the skills or time to do this, but might take a swing if I see a way and others don't. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Poverty effects

I'm wanting to add the following paragraph to the poverty subsection:

"Other studies suggest that minimum wage hikes are ineffective at alleviating poverty and may even exacerbate the problem. Research conducted by David Neumark and colleagues found that minimum wages are associated with reductions in the hours and employment of low-wage workers—the combined effect of which is a net decline in earned income. A separate study by the same researchers found that minimum wages tend to increase the proportion of families with incomes below or near the poverty line."

When originally adding this paragraph I cited working papers, and Greyfell removed the paragraph for that reason. Thus, I improved the paragraph by citing peer-reviewed journal entries instead (as cited above). However, despite no longer citing working papers, Greyfell removed the paragraph again, stating that "Working papers are not significant enough to include, here." He also advised that I "Discuss on talk before restoring."

I'm new here and don't know how to properly proceed. What should I do from here?

Lowell.Lowe (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

References

@Lowell.Lowe: Hello. I apologize, I didn't realize you had improved the sources. That was my mistake, and I should have looked more closely.

I still have several problems with your additions, however.

While David Neumark is a reputable economist, these are two WP:PRIMARY studies in journals, and don't represent any sort of academic consensus. Care must be made to preserve due weight, and secondary studies, such as review articles are always more desirable than articles like these.

Since there is no broad academic consensus for or against minimum wages, presenting this as a 'pro v. con' format introduces false balance. Rather than draw conclusions based on primary studies, we should just state the research's findings and leave it at that. This may seem like a subtle point, but presenting these studies as an indicator of a larger academic trend is original research, which isn't outside of Wikipedia's scope.

The Congressional Budget Office is already established as very significant to this article through multiple sources and the common sense idea that a government agency's findings are relevant to an article on government policy. These other studies you have added are not as prominent, and should not be overstated. One of these studies is by an academic who, reputable as he may be, was at the time an assistant professor. If we're going to mention his name at all (which is reasonable) we should provide the reader with the means to assess his expertise, otherwise it's non-neutral. His current position isn't particularly relevant. According to the provided source, at the time the study was published, he was an assistant professor at American University. I think so, anyway. Am I misreading this?

I have made some changes to this end, and hopefully this is an acceptable compromise. I hope that explains things, and again, I apologize for my earlier error. Grayfell (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Hi, Grayfell! Don't worry about not noticing the citation change. I don't imagine I would have caught it either. The real mistake was me citing working papers in the first place!

I think the changes you've made are very reasonable. I'm perfectly happy to keep the paragraphs as you've adjusted them Lowell.Lowe (talk) 05:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Minimum wage in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923234744/http://www.el-cerrito.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/2339 to http://www.el-cerrito.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/2339
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509160031/http://www.santafelivingwage.org/ to http://www.santafelivingwage.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130821030142/http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_br0IEq5a9E77NMV to http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_br0IEq5a9E77NMV
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170103165703/https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdle/2017-minimum-wage to https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdle/2017-minimum-wage
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150907220844/http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=32064 to http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=32064
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141227100247/http://www.afscme.org/blog/louisville-council-raises-minimum-wage-to-9-an-hour to http://www.afscme.org/blog/louisville-council-raises-minimum-wage-to-9-an-hour
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151017052053/http://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article39213675.html to http://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article39213675.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402132502/http://www.santafenm.gov/living_wage to http://www.santafenm.gov/living_wage
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150317002149/http://www.nclabor.com/wh/fact%20sheets/minimum_wage_in_NC.htm to http://www.nclabor.com/wh/fact%20sheets/minimum_wage_in_NC.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402132353/http://www.nd.gov/labor/laws/34-06.html to http://www.nd.gov/labor/laws/34-06.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150310153512/http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=553566&mode=2 to http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=553566&mode=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Omission

Something that is overlooked in this article is the fact that the Federal Minimum Wage law doesn't cover all existing jobs -- one reason why the corresponding state laws are important, even if they specify a wage identical to the Federal law. IIRC, jobs omitted include salaried positions, work paid by commission, & exceptions for small business. (I know agricultural workers were excluded entirely at first, & were only included as an included class in the 1950s.) -- llywrch (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

An omission is made by leaving out that Massachusetts will be raising their minimum wage to $15 by 2023. Tipped wages go up as well from $3.75 to $6.75.--71.10.248.239 (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Origins section

Reviewing the section of the page dedicated to origins, it seems odd that there isn't a discussion of the 1931 Davis-Bacon act, which was the first actual national minimum wage. Any one have an objection to that addition? Squatch347 (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Finally got around to a draft. Here is my suggestion:

The first attempts at a minimum wage rate occurred in 1931 with the Davis-Bacon Act. This act applied only to federally contracted workers, but has had a strong impact on local labor prices during the 1930s through 1960s. Its origins were a combination of racial animus both in southern and northern states and Progressive concerns about a "living wage" (the idea that society should not accept individuals who are earning below what they "cost" the society through consumption). The act was initial championed as a method to prevent non-unionized black and immigrant labor (primarily from China and Japan) from competing with existing union labor, which often limited or prohibited minority membership.

The act was initially written by Representative Robert Bacon of Long Island who expressed concern during his attempts to get a series of bills passed that limited immigration to preserve the "racial status quo" and supported early version of Jim Crow laws. During the debate over what became the Davis-Bacon Act, Rep. William Upshaw, a Georgia Democrat quipped to his northern colleagues that he hoped it wouldn't be held against him if a southerner "smiles over the fact of your reaction to that real problem you are confronted with in any community with a superabundance or large aggregation of Negro labor."

The Davis-Bacon Act is still in effect today, President Obama used it to raise federal wage rates for contract workers with the rationale that federal payment rates have a large effect on wider wage rates. Its role in setting a minimum wage, however, was superseded by the Fair Labor Standards Act, passed in 1938.

Squatch347 (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

First, a major problem with this entire section is that it relies on one biased article by the libertarian think tank Foundation for Economic Education. The wording is biased and inflammatory. What is the point of quoting the word "negro" and having it capitalized? Also, the law was not passed to discriminate against anyone, but rather to guarantee that local higher-paid workers were not undercut by cheaper imported labor. It did not matter what kind of labor that it was. It could be workers coming from the South, Europe, Asia or anywhere else. The local workers did not want any labor undercutting them, even if that labor was the whitest of white.

Secondly, The Davis-Bacon act was not the first federal act to regulate wage and hour conditions for federal work. In 1840, President Martin Van Buren passed the first federal wage regulation, which guaranteed federal workers a ten hour workday without reduced wages. Later in 1869, after Congress passed an eight-hour law for federal workers, President Ulysses Grant declared that there should be no reduction in pay with the reduced hours. In the 1910s, a range of federal laws were passed that regulated hours of work and wages. The 1912 Public Works Act guaranteed that federal contract work must have an eight-hour workday clause. In 1915, the federal government passed the Seamen's Act, which regulated wages and hours for maritime workers. Later in 1916, the federal government passed the Adamson Act, which established the eight-hour workday for railroad workers and additional pay for overtime. Then during World War I, the government established the War Industries Board, which were able to regulate wages in industry, in order, to maintain harmony between management and labor.(See The Political Economy of the Living wage page 55) Getting into the Davis-Bacon Act would get this article into all these other historical wage and hour regulations by the federal government, which seems like a massive detour from the main topic of this wiki article. --Guest2625 (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I would recommend re-reading the proposed addition. It does reference an FEE article, though I don't see an issue with that, your poisoning the well not with standing. It also references the Washington Post and USA Today. If you think we need additional sources for the material, feel free to propose them WP:SOFIXIT. Your statement about their concern with labor competition is unfounded. Contemporary discussion, as referenced in the source, doesn't mention other white labor, it mentions Asian and African American labor. If you have sources saying that the authors of Davis-Bacon were concerned about white labor, please bring it forward. I'd point out that widely held notion that Robert Bacon was an open racist as a pretty firmly held fact.

Secondly, the acts mentioned are all specifically related either to working conditions or to a specific industry (absent the War Industries Board, which could be a worthy addition as well), none of them cover a price floor for labor set by the federal government in anything like the way Davis-Bacon sets it for all federal contracts. Just because there is legislation about prices or working conditions does not mean it is related to setting a price floor for labor (minimum wage) which is what Davis-Bacon is the first to have done nationally.

Squatch347 (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

As I stated previously, this addition is biased and poorly sourced. The one source is written by a student at a libertarian think tank. The Washington Post article is an opinion piece from the 1990s. Also, this add-on is a random detour in an article about the minimum wage in the United States. --Guest2625 (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

We allow thinktanks on wiki all the time, especially to point out relatively non-loaded historical fact. Unless you have a policy that FEE is not appropriate for wiki this seems more cherry-picking than credible objection. What's more, this section mirrors the parent [Davis–Bacon_Act_of_1931]] which also discusses it as an early minimum wage law and its concerns over racism. If you think there is a better phrasing of the addition, I'd suggest an edit rather than a simple revert per WP:SOFIXIT. It would also be helpful to better understand what point of view you think needs to be included.

If you'd like additional sources, porting those over from the parent article should fit the bill:

Bernstein, David E. (2001), "Prevailing-Wage Laws", Only One Place of Redress: African Americans, Labor Regulations and the Court from Reconstruction to the New Deal, Duke University Press, ISBN 978-0822325833

Williams, Walter (2001). Race and Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed on Discrimination?. p. 34. ISBN 978-0817912451.

Bernstein, David, The Davis-Bacon Act: Let's Bring Jim Crow to an End (PDF), Cato Institute, retrieved 26 December 2012

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Labor. Hearings on H.R. 17069, 69th Cong., 2d Sess., Feb 28, 1927, pp. 2–4

Hearings on H.R. 7995 & H.R. 9232, 71st Cong., 2d Sess., Mar 6, 1930, pp. 26–27

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Labor. Hearings on H.R. 7995 & H.R. 9232, 71st Cong., 2d Sess., Mar 6, 1930, pp. 26–27

The Davis-Bacon Act Should Be Repealed, Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States, HRD-79-18 (PDF), Government Accountability Office, April 27, 1979, retrieved 27 December 2012

Squatch347 (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

When you want to add material on wikipedia, it is your task to properly source the material with reliable sources. It is the not the task of the other editors. The link to the wiki article Davis–Bacon Act of 1931 is a perfect example of how this added material is a massive detour on the topic of this article, and a random three paragraph commentary on race. In the Davis–Bacon Act of 1931 article, it should be noted that there is no discussion about race in the lead, since the controversy is secondary, and in this article, it is clearly off topic.

If you could provide a standard work on the minimum wage and its history, that goes into a discussion of the Davis–Bacon act that would be great. Does David Neumark in his standard work Minimum Wages mention anything about the Davis–Bacon act. Or do any of the other classic works on the minimum wage discuss it. Or, is this some random material about race from a libertarian think tank inserted into a wikipedia article. --Guest2625 (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Nuemark only contains a single mention of any legislation of any type and that is in the introduction as an example. He isn't providing anything like a comprehensive or even adjudicated history on legislation, he is discussing economic effects. You'll notice that this is pretty common for works on this subject such as Neumark's [7] We do have multiple sources that point out the obvious, that Davis-Bacon was an act about minimum wages. I don't think any of these should go in the article itself, but I'll include them here for your review. The first is your own source linked in the discussion of Australia [8] which includes a discussion of Davis-Bacon's impact on minimum wage policy and thought.

We can also note that the Department of Labor refers to Davis-Bacon as an act whose goal is to prevent the underpayment of workers by establishing a wage guideline, [9] and includes the required poster under the minimum wage for contractors section [10].

Further, when defined the Davis-Bacon Act is variously described as "The Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C.A. §§ 276a to 276a-5) is federal law that governs the Minimum Wage rate to be paid to laborers..." [11], " that "set[s] forth the minimum wages to be paid to various classifications of laborers" [12].

The origins of the act are directly tied to HR 1235 [13] which is titled: "Minimum Wage Bill for Federal Employees" [14]

Lastly, the DBA itself has an entire section titled "Minimum Wages." [15]

So given all this, it is hard to call Davis-Bacon not an employment related act regulating the price floor for wages, ie a minimum wage law. The idea that it is a "diversion" when we just included tangential information from Australia seems hard to subscribe to. The same Americans following the movement of the Australian Progressives were just as keen on following the Progressive wing of their own party in their own country.

Squatch347 (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

In your response, you did not provide a standard work on the minimum wage and its history that mentions the Davis–Bacon act. You also did not address why you have chosen to go off on a three paragraph detour on race, when the Davis–Bacon Act wikipedia article does not mention race in its lead and lists race in a subsection under controversy. --Guest2625 (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Neat. Given that Neumark doesn't cover legislation virtually at all it isn't clear why that is a pre-requisite to the addition. Nor have you justified that we are required to follow academic text books for our structure by wiki policy. This article would require a significant re-write if that were the case. Nor is it clear why we should ignore sources that you added to the article that discuss Davis-Bacon as meaningful in the origins for the minimum wage. Nor is it a detour to talk about race in this section given it was the explicit motive of the author of the legislation. At this point you are just rejecting meaningful content for the sake of rejecting it. Can you provide a justification why an act described in the sources you added as significant in the development of the minimum wage shouldn't be discussed at all in the article? Squatch347 (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

History section not related to US.

I removed a section of the history of the article as unrelated. Specifically, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=873021359

Guest2625 re-added the text with the argument that it provided necessary background. I'd like to open up a discussion about that here as it doesn't seem to be a material addition to the article, but unrelated filler.

Specifically, the section (pasted below) exclusively discusses campaigns in Australia. The only tie in to the US is the last sentence, "During the same time period, campaigns against sweated labor were occurring in the United States and England" There is no indication in the text or the sources offered that the Australian movement was an intellectual forebearer to the US movement at all. There clearly were contemporary (and predecessor) campaigns in the US to institute a minimum wage. They are discussed below in the Progressive Era section. Unless there is some kind of intellectual tie in to the US campaigns it isn't clear what purpose this paragraph serves.

Should we include a brief summary of the history of the minimum wage in general? That seems a bit much, but would be just as warranted as this paragraph. I suggest replacing it with a link directly to the main MW page at the beginning of the first paragraph, which does an excellent job tying in the US campaigns with broader international movements.

Squatch347 (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The first successful attempts at using minimum wage laws to ameliorate the problem of nonliving wages occurred in the Australian state of Victoria in 1896. Factory inspector reports and newspaper reporting on the conditions of sweated labor in Melbourne, Victoria led in 1895 to the formation of the National Anti-Sweating League which pushed the government aggressively to deal legislatively with the problem of substandard wages. The government, following the recommendation of the Victorian Chief Secretary Alexander Peacock, established wage boards which were tasked with establishing minimum wages in the labor trades which suffered from nonlivable wages. During the same time period, campaigns against sweated labor were occurring in the United States and England.

The structure of the history section follows that of other standard works on the minimum wage in the United States. Minimum wages by David Neumark is a fairly standard book on the topic. See his Chapter 1: "Introduction" and then see his Chapter 2: "The History of the Minimum Wage in the United States". In both of these chapters, he goes over the origin of the minimum wage starting with Australia. It is standard procedure in describing the historical origin of a country's concept to follow its root back to the source, and to describe the concept in the greater context of the historical events of the time. --Guest2625 (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Kudos for the Neumark citation, his work is definitely some of the best in the field, if not in labor economics in general. The difference between what Neumark has written in Chapter 2 and here is that Neumark is giving a general introduction to MW legislation as an introduction to its analysis and study. He is contrasting the fact that most economic research on the subject is done in the US, even though the US was not the first to implement the legislation. He is specifically doing that because he will cite data on those impacts later. That isn't exactly what we are doing in our section, nor does Neumark have the ability to reference the broader MW discussion as easily as Wiki allows.

Moreover, our section, as written doesn't really "follow its root back to the source" as I noted. Neumark and the Wiki writing currently make not intellectual or causal link between the Australian/New Zealand laws and US movements. If we want to write and source a connection that would make a lot of sense to add the "origin story," but that isn't what we currently have. Rather, we seem to have an unconnected piece of trivia that, as written (and I think historically) have no clear logical connection to the movements in the US. To give a brief example. The article on socialism in China references some inclusion of market zones in China. A similar trend happened in the USSR, but they two weren't causally connected so they aren't referenced on each other's pages.

I guess what I'm asking is, what is the connection between the Australian legislation and the US? It doesn't seem very clear to me from the paragraph.

Squatch347 (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Progressivism in the United States was significantly shaped by developments in Australia. Getting into the details of this fact are long and require reading in detail on the period and the trans-Pacific intellectual exchange. (One book that covers this topic is Progressive New World: How Settler Colonialism and Transpacific Exchange Shaped American Reform. The introduction chapter specifically gives a quick overview of the topic.) Most of the ideas of the Progressive Era in the United States have their origin in Australia. Most of the thought leaders of the Progressive Era (e.g. Theodore Roosevelt, Henry George, Elizabeth Evans, Florence Kelley, Josephine Goldmark, Maud Wood Park, Jessie Ackermann, M.B. Hammond, Victor S. Clark, Richard T. Ely, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Herbert Croly, Walter Lippmann, and Learned Hand) were significantly affected by the political and social developments in Australia. A specific example of close Australian-American intellectual interaction is that of future Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter's close and constant correspondence with Australian Judge H. B. Higgins, who determined the Harvester case in 1907, which is the most important case in minimum wage legislation. To see how Australian developments affected laws in the United States, one can also read the book Outside In: The Transnational Circuitry of US History, and specifically look at the section "Looking to Australia" on page 80.

On a structural basis, the history section of this wiki article is the same as that of Neumark's book. The chapter that I referenced from his book is titled "The History of the Minimum Wage in the United States". This wiki article is titled the "Minimum wage in the United States". The section, which we are discussing, is titled "History". Neumark's chapter mentions Australia, the wiki article section mentions Australia. There is no reason to remove the information on Australia, at least according to Neumark. Other books on the minimum wage in the United States are similarly in agreement, and take the same historical route for the topic as Neumark. --Guest2625 (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I think this is a fantastic response. Your first paragraph does exactly what I think the current structure lacks, make that connection. I agree with you that we don't want to beat that peripheral horse to death though so something brief would be better. Perhaps something like this would work (I'll include the same citations and add as you've offered of course)?

The first successful attempts at setting a legislated minimum wage occurred in the Australian state of Victoria in 1896. Factory inspector reports and newspaper reporting on the conditions of sweated labor in Melbourne, Victoria led in 1895 to the formation of the National Anti-Sweating League which advocated for fixed minimum wages and reforms in working conditions. The government, following the recommendation of the Victorian Chief Secretary Alexander Peacock, established wage boards which were tasked with establishing minimum wages in labor trades. These developments, along with their consequent legal challenges, such as the Harvester Case, were actively followed by American and English Progressives and cited in their campaigns for similar legislative reforms. The relationship between future Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter Australian Judge H. B. Higgins, who determined the Harvester case, is an example of the close intellectual relationship between Australian and American Progressive movements during this era.

Thoughts? Squatch347 (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I saw the addition of the text, thank you. I made some additional small edits primarily to remove the terms related to a "living wage" which can mean something quite different in 1920-1930 Progressive parlance and remove the subjective "substandard wages" language. Additionally, I added that they were also calling for reforms in working conditions beyond just wage rates. Squatch347 (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The definition of a living wage has been stable since the 1890s. One of the main foundations of the definition of a living wage stems from Pope Leo XIII's encyclical entitled Rerum Novarum which was issued in May 15, 1891. In section 45, the pope states:

"Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner."

Please read the highly reliable sources which have been provided in the historical section of this wiki article, so that a full understanding of the time period may be obtained. --Guest2625 (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

There are two issues using the term "living wage" in this section. The first is that none of the sources seem to indicate that that was what the organizations were asking for. Rather, their petitions were for 'better' wages, so we should at least alter the article to reflect that.

The second issue is that you are incorrect that this term was clearly understood to reflect the raising of wages to assist the poor during the Progressive Era. You'll notice that the Pope doesn't use the term in your quote at all, but rather references the concept you are associating with the term, an association that only became the majority association in the 1960s. Rather, the term's origins and predominate usage during the Progressive Era came from its association with the Eugenics Movement. I would recommend reading "War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, Expanded Edition" by Edwin Black. The term's first usage, especially in the US was to define a wage that could be used to measure whether someone was a net contributor to society or a net extractor from society. The initial pushes for defining a set living wage in the US were to establish a legislated wage below which no one should earn as part of an effort to isolate "lower" elements of society. Additionally, I would recommend reading Thomas C. Leonard's review of economic literature in Retrospectives Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era, published by the Journal of Economic Perspectives. He specifically notes the living wage was associated in economics journals with discussions of net capital improvement level. IE the amount of productivity where people produced more than they consumed. This was not a discussion in the US of what people should earn in order to survive, but rather a discussion of what must they be capable of earning in order to warrant survival.

We can see this definition bluntly put forward in the American Labor Legislation Review, 1913, where Henry Rogers Seager of Columbia University, and later president of the American Economic Association said;

The operation of the minimum wage requirement would merely extend the definition of defectives to embrace all individuals, who even after having received special training, remain incapable of adequate self-support...If we are to maintain a race that is to be made of up of capable, efficient and independent individuals and family groups we must courageously cut off lines of heredity that have been proved to be undesirable by isolation or sterilization.

I'll leave this part with a contemporary quote from eugenics proponent Sidney Webb in his 1912 article titled "The Economic Theory of the Minimum Wage;"

What would be the result of a Legal Minimum Wage on the employer’s persistent desire to use boy labor, girl labor, married women’s labor, the labor of old men, of the feeble-minded, of the decrepit and broken-down invalids and all the other alternatives to the engagement of competent male adult workers at a full Standard Rate? … To put it shortly, all such labor is parasitic on other classes of the community, and is at present employed in this way only because it is parasitic...The unemployable, to put it bluntly, do not and cannot under any circumstances earn their keep. What we have to do with them is to see that as few as possible of them are produced.”

Squatch347 (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Bumping this and the section above for discussion. Squatch347 (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Bumping this one more time, but absent any specific text from the sources using the term living wages, I think we need to stick to the language they use. Squatch347 (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

If you could more clearly state your complaint about the usage of well defined words and language, that would be great. Below I have included a few standard definitions from publications from the time period. The sources of these definitions are also great material to read to understand the thinking of the period.

Standard Progressive Era definition of sweating:

By "sweating," I mean, of course, what has come by common consent to be the ordinarily accepted definition of that term, viz., "the payment by an employer to his work people of a wage which is insufficient to purchase for them the necessaries of life." — Mathew Hammond 1913[16]

Standard Progressive Era definition of living wage:

I take it then that a living wage means:

1. – A wage by which the worker may obtain the means of subsistence – (a) for himself, (b) for those legitimately dependent upon him.

2. – A wage by which the worker may provide reasonable home comforts and fit himself for the discharge of the duties of citizenship.

— Mark Oldroyd 1894 [17]

Then there is John A. Ryan's book A living wage; its ethical and economic aspects from 1906, which is the gold standard on the topic of living wages for the time period. See page 33 and his discussion of a minimum living wage. --Guest2625 (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply. No issue with the term "sweating" which appears both in the source documentation and doesn't have nebulous use in context. However, those criteria aren't met for the term "living wage."

My first objection is that the term is not used by the cited materials except in one source's title. The language isn't used in context of the sections referenced. While that source does discuss wages that were below the "necessities of life" it doesn't use the term living wage or nonliving wage in that text, so inserting it is adding to the author's statement.

My second objection relates to the term having multiple meanings in contemporary usage as I quoted above. When combined with the fact that those calling for the changes we are talking about didn't actually use the term it seems prudent to use a less loaded term when discussing it. This also applies to words like "substandard" which is a subjective word here given that there wasn't an objective standard at the time to compare wages too, it works as a value judgement by us as to whether the wage was the "right" amount or not and imparts a POV.

Squatch347 (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll try to be clearer with my statement of the standard definitions for the time period I gave above:

Sweating means paying a wage that does not cover the necessaries of life, while

Living wage means paying a wage that does cover the necessaries of life.

What these definitions mean is that if you want to stop paying sweated wages (does not cover necessaries of life) that you want to pay a living wage (does cover necessaries of life). Or that if you want to stop the payment of nonliving wages (does not cover necessaries of life – aka sweating wages) that you are wanting the payment of wages that cover the of necessaries life (aka living wages).

And, the definitions I have presented for sweating and a living wage are definitely the standard definitions for the time period. The examples available of the definitions given are numerous. In fact the three sources, I gave are authoritative on the standard definition. --Guest2625 (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Setting aside for the moment that this still relies on a textual inference from us (the source document not using the term or even the inferred term), which is bad practice for an encyclopedia; I'd disagree with your second definition. I think it is better phrased as Living wage can mean paying a wage that does cover the necessaries of life. It doesn't necessarily mean that. I gave three contrasting uses of the term from Thomas C. Leonard, Henry Rogers Seager, and Sidney Webb. These are not one off contributors to Progessive Era thought, but are mainstream and well regarded. The second reference I offered even surveyed economic and legal literature for use of the term and found that it was more often used in the manner I describe then in the neutral usage you offer.

At very least the term is noted as being used both ways, so we should be cautious in including it here since the source doesn't use the terminology itself. Squatch347 (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I have provided an authoritative definition of a living wage, which shows that it means the opposite of a sweated wage. There are numerous other examples from the time period that are in agreement with this definition. Please provide a concise one sentence definition from your above discussion of what you believe a living wage or sweating means. --Guest2625 (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

You've provided a definition, you've in no way shown that it is "authoritative." You've also missed the point of the argument. It isn't that the definition you've offered wasn't commonly used. It is that it isn't the only definition commonly used. It isn't relevant at all that you can find a source citing that definition. It is only relevant if you can find a source that cites it as the only definition. Given that I've provided three reputable sources for contrasting definitions, I think it is at least warranted to argue that multiple definitions are being concurrently used. You've also offered no defense of this term being used as a inferential term, rather than us using the actual language from the source. Finally, you've offered no defense at all for why this term is preferred over a less loaded term as offered that is matched from the sources. Squatch347 (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The claim that Washington has the highest minimum wage

The article claims that Washington state has the highest minimum wage in the United States, however I live in Massachusetts and we raised our minimum wage to $12/hr in January 2019 on its way to $15/hr in 2022 (I believe).

This just appears to be out of date information.

I could be wrong.

Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 22:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you are correct. It also mentions later that WA and MA have the highest... I think altering or updating the WA only language makes sense. Squatch347 (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)