How Does U.S. Compare Globally on Minimum Wage?

Your next video will start in

Recommended Videos

  • Info

  • Comments


Jan. 2 (Bloomberg) -- Economic Policy Institute Vice President Ross Eisenbrey discusses the U.S. minimum wage on Bloomberg Television's "In The Loop." (Source: Bloomberg)

Other industrialized countries when we talk about minimum wage?

The minimum wage is different all over the world.

England has raised their minimum wage, they did not have one until 1999, it is now about a little over $10 an hour.

Germany has a minimum wage, angela merkel has just agreed as part of her new government to raise the minimum wage in germany.

The u.s. -- the problem -- australia has a $15 an hour minimum wage.

We are way behind that.

The problem is the u.s. is that it is too little to live on.

$7.25 is low.

In other countries, a few you mentioned, there is an infrastructure for health care and pensions, a social infrastructure that we do not have.

Current minimum wage is seven dollars to five cents, -- $7.25 the proposal is $10.10, how likely is it that this gets passed?

The authority instead.

I worked for senator kennedy in 1995 and 1996, the odds were against it then that we managed to raise it.

It is certainly possible.

The biggest thing is that it is possible.

If enough people write congress and raise a ruckus, congress will have to respond.

Part of your argument, ross, for inflation adjustment, the $ 10.10 rate is basically what the u.s. had in the 1960's? that is right, the equals of 1968. as far as worker demographics, is this geared toward getting young people employed or towards older people were fourth of 40 years old who are not participating in the labor force?

This would allow them to get in.

This is not so much about creating jobs, although there is a small job creation impact.

The people who will be most affected are in their late 20's and 30's. the median age is in the 30's for people earning minimum wage.

This is not about teenagers.

It is people who need this income to survive.


Hey, ross.

The talking points are always going to be thrown out by the other side.

Jobs, they feel like the economic research -- if it is not 100% conclusive, there is plenty that will show that this will cost jobs.

Your folks do not believe that.

How do you counter that argument?

The weight of the evidence from looking at years and years of these increases at the state and federal level is that there is no job loss.

That is a red herring.

Giving people more money, putting money into the pockets of low-wage workers means they will spend it.

They need to.

That stimulates the economy.

It does not cost jobs, there is no evidence any more than it does.

There have been people that have spoken out saying it costs jobs and there'll be smaller businesses that cannot afford to pay $10.10 as opposed to $7.25. the $10.10 happens over three years.

It is gradual.

The kinds of businesses that are paying $7.25 an hour mostly local, not international.

They are not competing against countries where they will be undercut.

This is hospital workers, restaurant workers, people working in hotels.

All their competitors have to

This text has been automatically generated. It may not be 100% accurate.


BTV Channel Finder


ZIP is required for U.S. locations

Bloomberg Television in   change