If minimum wage were raised ...

[Quantum Windbag]

So if the minimum wage stays at $7.25, the price of milk and bread won't go up? The price of cars won't go up?

The situation is not cut-and-dried.

The price of milk is set by federal law. It would drop considerably if the government got out of the way.

Come to think of it, that is true of quite a few things we consider staple foods.

Worked well when Reagan deregulated HMO's. Just a 360% increase in premiums.

If only one of us had a link to back up their claims.

Wait, I do.

USDA ERS - Dairy: Policy

 

[Politico]

Jobs would be lost or prices would go up. No free lunch. Actually business would do both if they could get away with it.

 

[Dragonlady]

If the minimum wage was raised in a year the effect would be non existent.

So no jobs would go overseas because of the raise?

Or would the job loss and the job creation balance out?

Every time the minimum wage has been increased, there are an increase in employment.

When poor people get more money, they spend it all, and this acts as an economic stimulus. Higher demand for the goods and services they are purchasing, increases employment.

 

[The Professor]

If the minimum wage was raised in a year the effect would be non existent.

So no jobs would go overseas because of the raise?

Or would the job loss and the job creation balance out?

Every time the minimum wage has been increased, there are an increase in employment.

When poor people get more money, they spend it all, and this acts as an economic stimulus. Higher demand for the goods and services they are purchasing, increases employment.

I don't doubt you have sources which confirm what you say. But there are other sources, those I believe are more legitimate, which say the opposite. One of the best articles I have read was The Record is Clear: Minimum Wage Hikes Destroy Jobs by Michael Saltsman of Forbes. The author writes in part:

“In a comprehensive, 182-page summary of the research on this subject from the last two decades, economists David Neumark (UC-Irvine) and William Wascher (Federal Reserve Board) determined that 85 percent of the best research points to a loss of jobs following a minimum wage increase.

“As in any academic discipline, there are outliers. But even the outliers are problematic: For instance, the famous (or rather, infamous) New Jersey study that associated a higher minimum with increased employment was later refuted in the same academic journal that originally published it. More recently, the paper that the President relied on to make his case for a higher minimum was debunked in a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.”

In addition to the negative effect on employment, the author explains why minimum wage increases have had no associated reduction in the poverty rates. The author also debunked those who claim that the minimum rate should be $9/hour when adjusted for inflation.

“Stevenson covers other oft-cited reasons to raise the minimum wage, including the argument that, adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage would already be above $9 an hour. But inflation rates can both rise and fall, which means a minimum wage that truly kept up with inflation since its inception in 1938 would only be $4.12 today—not the current $7.25”

The Record Is Clear: Minimum Wage Hikes Destroy Jobs - Forbes

There are other sources which accurately show the true inflation-adjusted minimum wage and it's not even close to $9/hour.

“When President Franklin D. Roosevelt first created the minimum wage in 1938, it was 25 cents. Adjusted for inflation, that would be worth $4.07 today. The minimum wage had its lowest buying power in 1948, when it was worth about $3.81 in today's dollars. It had its highest buying power in 1968, when it was worth about $10.56. At $7.25 in 2012, our current minimum wage is in the middle of those two extremes.

"President Obama's proposal to raise the minimum wage to $9 would put it back to a value last seen in the early 1980s.”

A history of the minimum wage since 1938 - Economy

 

[Katzndogz]

If the minimum wage really helped the economy it would have done so by now. It is a fix that fixes nothing. All a hike in the minimum wage does, is set the benchmark for the next minimum wage hike.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If the minimum wage was raised in a year the effect would be non existent.

So no jobs would go overseas because of the raise?

Or would the job loss and the job creation balance out?

Every time the minimum wage has been increased, there are an increase in employment.

When poor people get more money, they spend it all, and this acts as an economic stimulus. Higher demand for the goods and services they are purchasing, increases employment.

I love it when people make absolute statements because absolute statements are always wrong. (Yes, that is an absolute statement, and it contradicts itself, which actually proves I am right.)

FYI, jobs always increase in a healthy economy, and the impact of wage hikes are limited outside the job market they affect the most. In order to see the actual impact of minimum wage hikes you need to look at the people who generally work those jobs, teenagers.

Minimum Wage Increase Leads to Higher Teen Unemployment Rate - WSJ.com

 

[The Professor]

There are those who propose that an increase in the minimum wage will increase employment and others (like me) who contend the opposite. Even the so-called experts disagree on this issue so I am not surprised by the disagreement I witness on this forum. Rather than get into a “battle of the experts” I propose a more simple approach.

Sometimes it helps to break things down to the lowest level in order to understand how they work . If a higher wage compelled more people to seek employment, what good would it do if there were no more jobs to be had. How many times have thousands of hopeful job seekers lined up for a shot at a mere dozen or so jobs? It seems to me that an employer will always hire the people he needs and if he cannot do so with the minimum wage he will raise the pay as needed. If the employer already has all the workers he needs and the minimum wage is raised, not only will he not seek additional employees but instead will look to cut the hours of those already working to keep his labor costs from rising. An employer does not need a government mandate to tell him how many employees he needs and how much he should pay to get them. In all my life I have never heard of an employer saying, “Well, they've increased the minimum wage so we're going to hire more people.”

And, yes, I've read the argument that if the low-wage workers have more money to spend the extra flow of cash will help the economy. What I cannot comprehend is how an economy is improved by raising wages for some when those who pay the increased wages (in the form of increased prices) have less money to spend on other things. It sounds like the same argument that Obama used to promote the clash-for-clunkers program. Yes, one sector of the economy – the new car market – did improve; however all other sectors suffered by the same dollar amount. A man can only spend his paycheck once and the money that went into buying a new car came at the expense of those other businesses that were the previous beneficiaries of the man's spending preferences.

 

[Againsheila]

If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little. Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.

So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?

And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?

I don't know, but I do know that the last several times the minimum wage was raised there was no net lose in jobs. I think there's something wrong in a country where the top 1% can increase their income by more than 200% while the middle class worker remains stagnant and the minimum wage worker loses ground.

I know our economy was much healthier when the minimum wage had it's highest spending power in history and the top tax rate was 70%.

 

[Againsheila]

There are those who propose that an increase in the minimum wage will increase employment and others (like me) who contend the opposite. Even the so-called experts disagree on this issue so I am not surprised by the disagreement I witness on this forum. Rather than get into a “battle of the experts” I propose a more simple approach.

Sometimes it helps to break things down to the lowest level in order to understand how they work . If a higher wage compelled more people to seek employment, what good would it do if there were no more jobs to be had. How many times have thousands of hopeful job seekers lined up for a shot at a mere dozen or so jobs? It seems to me that an employer will always hire the people he needs and if he cannot do so with the minimum wage he will raise the pay as needed. If the employer already has all the workers he needs and the minimum wage is raised, not only will he not seek additional employees but instead will look to cut the hours of those already working to keep his labor costs from rising. An employer does not need a government mandate to tell him how many employees he needs and how much he should pay to get them. In all my life I have never heard of an employer saying, “Well, they've increased the minimum wage so we're going to hire more people.”

And, yes, I've read the argument that if the low-wage workers have more money to spend the extra flow of cash will help the economy. What I cannot comprehend is how an economy is improved by raising wages for some when those who pay the increased wages (in the form of increased prices) have less money to spend on other things. It sounds like the same argument that Obama used to promote the clash-for-clunkers program. Yes, one sector of the economy – the new car market – did improve; however all other sectors suffered by the same dollar amount. A man can only spend his paycheck once and the money that went into buying a new car came at the expense of those other businesses that were the previous beneficiaries of the man's spending preferences.

The top 1% has had their income increased by more than 200% and their taxes have been reduced. Why can't the minimum wage worker have the same increase? Why is it bad for the economy for the people who actually spend the money in our economy to make as big an income increase as those who put their money into off shore accounts?

 

[Againsheila]

So no jobs would go overseas because of the raise?

Or would the job loss and the job creation balance out?

Every time the minimum wage has been increased, there are an increase in employment.

When poor people get more money, they spend it all, and this acts as an economic stimulus. Higher demand for the goods and services they are purchasing, increases employment.

I love it when people make absolute statements because absolute statements are always wrong. (Yes, that is an absolute statement, and it contradicts itself, which actually proves I am right.)

FYI, jobs always increase in a healthy economy, and the impact of wage hikes are limited outside the job market they affect the most. In order to see the actual impact of minimum wage hikes you need to look at the people who generally work those jobs, teenagers.

Minimum Wage Increase Leads to Higher Teen Unemployment Rate - WSJ.com

The majority of people making minimum wage are adults and that's been the case as long as I can remember.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little. Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.

So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?

And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?

I don't know, but I do know that the last several times the minimum wage was raised there was no net lose in jobs. I think there's something wrong in a country where the top 1% can increase their income by more than 200% while the middle class worker remains stagnant and the minimum wage worker loses ground.

I know our economy was much healthier when the minimum wage had it's highest spending power in history and the top tax rate was 70%.

No net loss in jobs.

That sounds great, doesn't it? Are you aware that even studies that claim to prove that minimum wage hikes do not affect employment numbers have repeatedly shown an immediate increase in unemployment after a hike? Or that they show that job growth is slower after the hike than it was before? If you can believe in jobs saved or created to argue in favor of stimulus plans that don't work, you can use the opposite metric, which I will call jobs disappeared or lost, to argue against wage hikes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There are those who propose that an increase in the minimum wage will increase employment and others (like me) who contend the opposite. Even the so-called experts disagree on this issue so I am not surprised by the disagreement I witness on this forum. Rather than get into a “battle of the experts” I propose a more simple approach.

Sometimes it helps to break things down to the lowest level in order to understand how they work . If a higher wage compelled more people to seek employment, what good would it do if there were no more jobs to be had. How many times have thousands of hopeful job seekers lined up for a shot at a mere dozen or so jobs? It seems to me that an employer will always hire the people he needs and if he cannot do so with the minimum wage he will raise the pay as needed. If the employer already has all the workers he needs and the minimum wage is raised, not only will he not seek additional employees but instead will look to cut the hours of those already working to keep his labor costs from rising. An employer does not need a government mandate to tell him how many employees he needs and how much he should pay to get them. In all my life I have never heard of an employer saying, “Well, they've increased the minimum wage so we're going to hire more people.”

And, yes, I've read the argument that if the low-wage workers have more money to spend the extra flow of cash will help the economy. What I cannot comprehend is how an economy is improved by raising wages for some when those who pay the increased wages (in the form of increased prices) have less money to spend on other things. It sounds like the same argument that Obama used to promote the clash-for-clunkers program. Yes, one sector of the economy – the new car market – did improve; however all other sectors suffered by the same dollar amount. A man can only spend his paycheck once and the money that went into buying a new car came at the expense of those other businesses that were the previous beneficiaries of the man's spending preferences.

The top 1% has had their income increased by more than 200% and their taxes have been reduced. Why can't the minimum wage worker have the same increase? Why is it bad for the economy for the people who actually spend the money in our economy to make as big an income increase as those who put their money into off shore accounts?

Because you refuse to address the real issues involved in what actually creates the problem you are talking about.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Every time the minimum wage has been increased, there are an increase in employment.

When poor people get more money, they spend it all, and this acts as an economic stimulus. Higher demand for the goods and services they are purchasing, increases employment.

I love it when people make absolute statements because absolute statements are always wrong. (Yes, that is an absolute statement, and it contradicts itself, which actually proves I am right.)

FYI, jobs always increase in a healthy economy, and the impact of wage hikes are limited outside the job market they affect the most. In order to see the actual impact of minimum wage hikes you need to look at the people who generally work those jobs, teenagers.

Minimum Wage Increase Leads to Higher Teen Unemployment Rate - WSJ.com

The majority of people making minimum wage are adults and that's been the case as long as I can remember.

Seriously?

Perhaps you should take the tike to inform the BLS that they got everything wrong.

In 2012, 75.3 million workers in the United States age 16 and over were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.0 percent of all wage and salary workers. 1 Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 2.0 million had wages below the federal minimum.2 Together, these 3.6 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 4.7 percent of all hourly paid workers. Tables 1 through 10 present data on a wide array of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics for hourly paid workers earning at or below the federal minimum wage. The following are some highlights from the 2012 data.

• Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 21 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and over. (See table 1 and table 7.)

Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012

 

[FA_Q2]

If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little. Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.

So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?

And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?

I don't know, but I do know that the last several times the minimum wage was raised there was no net lose in jobs. I think there's something wrong in a country where the top 1% can increase their income by more than 200% while the middle class worker remains stagnant and the minimum wage worker loses ground.

I know our economy was much healthier when the minimum wage had it's highest spending power in history and the top tax rate was 70%.

Yet you have cited nothing to back that claim up ant your opposition has. Why should w Felice that blanket stammer without anything to support it.

Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Againsheila]

If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little. Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.

So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?

And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?

I don't know, but I do know that the last several times the minimum wage was raised there was no net lose in jobs. I think there's something wrong in a country where the top 1% can increase their income by more than 200% while the middle class worker remains stagnant and the minimum wage worker loses ground.

I know our economy was much healthier when the minimum wage had it's highest spending power in history and the top tax rate was 70%.

No net loss in jobs.

That sounds great, doesn't it? Are you aware that even studies that claim to prove that minimum wage hikes do not affect employment numbers have repeatedly shown an immediate increase in unemployment after a hike? Or that they show that job growth is slower after the hike than it was before? If you can believe in jobs saved or created to argue in favor of stimulus plans that don't work, you can use the opposite metric, which I will call jobs disappeared or lost, to argue against wage hikes.

So you have no problem with the top 1% increasing their income by more than 200% while the rest of us are stagnated or lose spending power?!? Why is that? You don't honestly thing they "earn" that increase do you?

 

[OnePercenter]

All you are saying really is that prices need to come down. Lower taxes and reduce strangling regulation.

Walmart's effective tax rate for 2012 was 0.01%. How much lower do you want it to go? OBTW, how much was yours?

Which 'strangling regulation'? Safety guards for meat slicers?

Did you pull that number out of thin air, or just make it up?

As for strangling regulations, here is one example.

Here's Walmart's numbers. Do the math.

WMT Annual Income Statement - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Annual Financials

Your example is an underfunded business. Try again.

 

[Againsheila]

A raising tide lifts all boats. Except in America where 1% of our people are lifted more than 200% while the rest of us are flooded.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Walmart's effective tax rate for 2012 was 0.01%. How much lower do you want it to go? OBTW, how much was yours?

Which 'strangling regulation'? Safety guards for meat slicers?

Did you pull that number out of thin air, or just make it up?

As for strangling regulations, here is one example.

Here's Walmart's numbers. Do the math.

WMT Annual Income Statement - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Annual Financials

Your example is an underfunded business. Try again.

Perhaps you should walk me through your version of the math. Even if I go really stupid, and assume that they pay income on the entire $446.95 billion they earned last year, and then assumed that $5.34 billion they paid in income taxes was their entire tax burden, I come up with a tax rate that is exactly 100 times higher than the one you have. In other words, not only would I have to not know that no one pays taxes on their revenue, I would also have to not know how to figure percentages.

XXXXXXX

 

[OnePercenter]

Here's a link

Effective Tax Rate Definition | Investopedia

Still waiting for one of those 'strangling regulation'.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here's a link

Effective Tax Rate Definition | Investopedia

Still waiting for one of those 'strangling regulation'.[/QUOTE]

Damn, this is going to be fun.

Here is what your link says.

The average rate at which an individual or corporation is taxed. The effective tax rate for individuals is the average rate at which their earned income is taxed. The effective tax rate for a corporation is the average rate at which its pre-tax profits are taxed. An individual's effective tax rate is calculated by dividing total tax expense by taxable income. For corporations, the effective tax rate is computed by dividing total tax expenses by the firm's earnings before taxes. The effective tax rate is the net rate a taxpayer pays if all forms of taxes are included and divided by taxable income.

Nothing there about math, interesting. Anyway, lets go back and use those numbers.

Pretax income for WalMart $24.4 billion, taxes were still $7.94 billion. That makes their effective tax rate a whopping 32.5%.

Want me to do the math to tell you how many orders of magnitude that puts you off by?