How does the federal minimum wage rate effect all USA wage rates?

[Toddsterpatriot]

2.2 million workers, in 2016 made the minimum wage of less.
I rounded up to 2%. Now, about the proof you never posted...............

Toddsterpatriot, regardless if 2.2. million or only one USA employee earns $7.25 per hour is not consequential to the federal minimum wage rate's critical effects upon all of USA's lower-wage, and substantial effects upon medium-wage rates.

regardless if you agree or disagree, due to wage differentials, crew leaders are generally better compensated than other crew members, and foremen receive higher wages than those people they supervise.

Usually prior to the enactment of a federal minimum wage increase, almost all USA employers increase the rates of all employees earning less than the soon to be enacted updated minimum rate.

Although employers are not legally bound to do so, due to the concept of wage differentials, (statistically) all employers apparently believe it's to their best interest to similarly increase all of their low-wage employees' wage rates. The same self-interests leads them to increase their medium-wage rates.

Although in reaction to the minimum rate increase, higher wage rates will generally receive greater extents of increases, the increases for lower-rates will actually be proportionally greater, and for higher wage rates proportionally lesser increases. The purchasing power of the federal minimum wage is of maximum benefit to the working poor, and of some, but of extremely lesser benefit to higher wage rate employees.

Regardless of you accept or refute any of this, regardless if I have or have not proved it to your satisfaction, all of this that I described was and has remained true.
Respectfully, Supposn

Although in reaction to the minimum rate increase, higher wage rates will generally receive greater extents of increases, the increases for lower-rates will actually be proportionally greater, and for higher wage rates proportionally lesser increases.

Prove it.

regardless if I have or have not proved it to your satisfaction,

Since you've posted zero actual evidence.....I'll go with NOT.

 

[danielpalos]

Here is the "differential" we are trying to correct for:

Danielpalos, wealth inequality in America is a matter of no concern.​

Unjustifiable wealth differentials are consequences of problems. I certainly do not desire for any justifiable wealth disparities to be "fixed".

I'm concerned about the wealth's ability to buy political elections. Regardless of how wealth was accumulated, or what individuals, organizations, or corporations wield their wealth to influence votes, we must protect the integrity of our election processes.

I'm not particularly concerned about foreigners attempting to influence USA voters. I'm more concerned about we voters failing to exercise our own independent judgments.
Too many of us have determined others know our best interests better. Others are eager to exercise their judgment in place of our own. Immediately or sometime later, (i.e. now or eventually), but certainly their best interests and ours will differ. After surrendering our right or denying our obligations to think, later thoughts may be of no consequence.

Others wealth does not concern me, but the poverty of others endanger our democratic republic.
Respectfully, Supposn

I have a different perspective. Wealth inequality is what causes the perceived need for social services which may or may not be "market friendly."

 

[Supposn]

Danielpalos, I have a different perspective. Wealth inequality is what causes the perceived need for social services which may or may not be "market friendly."

Danielpalos, need for social services is a real need, regardless if it is or isn't perceived. Poverty is not caused or exacerbated due to wealth inequality. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[danielpalos]

Danielpalos, I have a different perspective. Wealth inequality is what causes the perceived need for social services which may or may not be "market friendly."

Danielpalos, need for social services is a real need, regardless if it is or isn't perceived. Poverty is not caused or exacerbated due to wealth inequality. Respectfully, Supposn

Why do you believe it isn't?

 

[Supposn]

The Congressional Budget Office predicted that as many as 3.7 million jobs could be lost if they raise the MW to $15/hr.
So Democrats start calling for it.
Any questions?

Mudwhistle, refer to:

What's actually in the CBO $15/Hr. Fed. Min. Rate Report?

Transcribed from page 3 of U.S. Congressional Budget report regarding the increase of the federal minimum wage rate to $15 per hour in six steps between January 1, 2020, and January 1, 2025, and then be indexed to median hourly wages. All dollars, ($) are 2018 dollars.

I consider HR528 as a good bill. ...​

Respectfully, Supposn​

 

[Supposn]

Danielpalos, need for social services is a real need, regardless if it is or isn't perceived. Poverty is not caused or exacerbated due to wealth inequality. Respectfully, Supposn

Why do you believe it isn't?

Danielpalos,
Why do you believe poverty is due to wealth inequality? I'm not opposed to others because they may or may not merit their wealth. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[danielpalos]

Danielpalos, need for social services is a real need, regardless if it is or isn't perceived. Poverty is not caused or exacerbated due to wealth inequality. Respectfully, Supposn

Why do you believe it isn't?

Danielpalos,
Why do you believe poverty is due to wealth inequality? I'm not opposed to others because they may or may not merit their wealth. Respectfully, Supposn

Why have any social services at all, if inequality does nothing to exacerbate poverty?

 

[Supposn]

Why have any social services at all, if inequality does nothing to exacerbate poverty?

Danielpalos, I hope this is the last time I address an answer to you regarding income disparity as an economic issue. It is not detrimental to our economy.
Government assistance programs do not to any (statistically significant) extent reduce disparity of wealth; that's not their purposes. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[danielpalos]

Why have any social services at all, if inequality does nothing to exacerbate poverty?

Danielpalos, I hope this is the last time I address an answer to you regarding income disparity as an economic issue. It is not detrimental to our economy.
Government assistance programs do not to any (statistically significant) extent reduce disparity of wealth; that's not their purposes. Respectfully, Supposn

...it should be a self-evident truth that higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand. we could be raising tax revenue by simply raising the minimum wage.

 

[Supposn]

Toddsterpatriot, ... regardless if you agree or disagree, due to wage differentials, crew leaders are generally better compensated than other crew members, and foremen receive higher wages than those people they supervise. ... Although employers are not legally bound to do so, due to the concept of wage differentials, (statistically) all employers apparently believe it's to their best interest to similarly increase all of their low-wage employees' wage rates. The same self-interests leads them to increase their medium-wage rates.

Although in reaction to the minimum rate increase, higher wage rates will generally receive greater extents of increases, the increases for lower-rates will actually be proportionally greater, and for higher wage rates proportionally lesser increases. The purchasing power of the federal minimum wage is of maximum benefit to the working poor, and of some, but of extremely lesser benefit to higher wage rate employees.

Regardless of you accept or refute any of this, regardless if I have or have not proved it to your satisfaction, all of this that I described was and has remained true.
Respectfully, Supposn

... Prove it.

regardless if I have or have not proved it to your satisfaction,

Since you've posted zero actual evidence.....I'll go with NOT.

Toddsterpatriot, OK; you continue perceiving your own alternative universe where employers and their enterprises behave in alternative fashions. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddsterpatriot, ... regardless if you agree or disagree, due to wage differentials, crew leaders are generally better compensated than other crew members, and foremen receive higher wages than those people they supervise. ... Although employers are not legally bound to do so, due to the concept of wage differentials, (statistically) all employers apparently believe it's to their best interest to similarly increase all of their low-wage employees' wage rates. The same self-interests leads them to increase their medium-wage rates.

Although in reaction to the minimum rate increase, higher wage rates will generally receive greater extents of increases, the increases for lower-rates will actually be proportionally greater, and for higher wage rates proportionally lesser increases. The purchasing power of the federal minimum wage is of maximum benefit to the working poor, and of some, but of extremely lesser benefit to higher wage rate employees.

Regardless of you accept or refute any of this, regardless if I have or have not proved it to your satisfaction, all of this that I described was and has remained true.
Respectfully, Supposn

... Prove it.

regardless if I have or have not proved it to your satisfaction,

Since you've posted zero actual evidence.....I'll go with NOT.

Toddsterpatriot, OK; you continue perceiving your own alternative universe where employers and their enterprises behave in alternative fashions. Respectfully, Supposn

I live in the actual universe.
Still no proof of your claims?

 

[danielpalos]

some inequality is due to unequal protection of the law for the Poor.