$15 minimum wage would destroy 1.4 Million jobs

[hadit]

And, as has been pointed out to you multiple times, the market can adjust to a gradual increase in the MW, but that's not what you want. You want to double the MW overnight AND create a massive new welfare program that will permanently pay people who refuse to take a job that new MW PLUS the same amount in welfare benefits, AND you claim it can be done with no negative effects to the economy. Be honest for a change.

The market can also adjust to forms of price inflation for goods and services. No one is preventing capitalists from asking for tax breaks to help with the adjustment process. No need to, hate on the Poor at all.

I don't see anyone offering tax breaks to offset higher labor costs, do you?

 

[jbander]

we

Wage is based on skill.

When a machine is responsible for the increase in productivity the gut who does nothing but turn the machine on and off isn't responsible for the increase in production the people who built the machine and wrote the computer code are and they get paid more.

Not true for CEO's. Why should it be true for more productive labor?

I already told you the labor isn't more productive it is actually less productive because the technology is responsible for the increase in production not the guy who turns on the machine. The people who actually make the machines , program them and keep them running are the ones getting the better pay.

And like I said what a CEO makes has no impact on what you make. Do you actually think if the government forced all CEOs to take a pay cut that your pay would increase?

Working the machine is what promotes higher productivity. CEOs don't work any harder.

no it's the machine itself.

One guy can monitor 3 or 4 machines because it's the machines that do all the work.

And once again what a CEO gets paid is completely irrelevant and has no impact on what people get paid.

Ceo impact what people get paid , are you that ignorant on what makes up the bottom line of a company. You puppets are such marks

most people don't work for companies with high paid CEOs

What Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk makes has never had an impact on my income and I bet it has none on yours..

anyone who collects dividends from a company losses, everyone who works for them are like every business in capitalism, they are restricted by the bottom line of the business on what they pay the people who work for them. Everyone that buys their products are effected by the price needed to polish the apple to the point that is compatible to the pay of the executives in this country. There has been bonuses higher then the distribution of dividends by the company. You have no idea what you are talking about. You corporate puppets spewing the corporate party line are comical.

And how has that affected your pay?

Most people do not work for companies with highly paid CEOs. And why do you think that if a CEO got paid less that the employees would be paid more?

Every company will pay pretty close to the market rate for any skilled labor no matter how much a CEO makes.

Stupid, I buy their products I collect their div. You just don't know what you are talking about and your questions to me proves it.

and the price of their products has no bearing on what your employer pays you.

My income has never been reduced because some CEO got a pay raise and neither has yours.

You simply are the normal mullet brained Corporate puppet reading word for word off their script.

No I never worked for any corporation.

So I know that what some corporate CEO gets paid has absolutely nothing to do with what I can earn.

ll ,everything you buy or if you invest in the markets, is effected by what the ceo makes.You seem to have no Idea what you are talking about, just a party line Nothing Idea that you really can't back up.

 

[Mr Natural]

I don't see anyone offering tax breaks to offset higher labor costs, do you?

Wages/salaries paid are tax deductible.

The more a business pays, the greater the deduction.

 

[jbander]

most people don't work for companies with high paid CEOs

What Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk makes has never had an impact on my income and I bet it has none on yours..

Gravity Payments disagrees with you.

How many people work for that company? And tell me how what Jeff Bezoz gets paid has any effect on the people who work there?

Anyone in this country can improve their financial situation if they want to.

No one is stopping you from increasing your own net worth but you.

That is just stupid,

YOUR COMMENT IS JUST GARBAGE ,NO ONE HAS GOTTEN AHEAD EXCEPT THE GOLDEN FEW AT THE TOP, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE CHART THAT IT STARTED IN 1981, GEE I WONDER WHAT HAPPENED IN 1981, TAKE A GUESS. YOUR NOTHING OTHER THEN A EXAMPLE HOW THE BLIND FOLLOW THE BLIND LIKE GOOD LITTLE PUPPETS

 

[jbander]

Do you know how stupid The right wing corporate toe suckers are, just short of 45% of the population make less then $15:00 an hour . The brain dead, only the teenage kids would be effected by the increase remark, is absolutely stupid. Just about everything that comes out of their mouths about this is a wash when everything is considered as far as the $15.00 hour minimum wage is concerned ,What it is is the fact that these corporate toe suckers are only speaking the party corporate line like good little puppets. The only thing it really breaks down to is who gets the money the worker or people who don't need it. When these idiots come on here with their bullshit corporate driven puppet response . just tell the to stick it, they are just to dumb and uncaring to have a debate with.

it's not the people who are making over 10 dollars an hour that will lose their jobs.

EMPTY COMMENT WITHOUT THE BALANCE OF THE PLUSES THAT COME WITH A $15.00 MINIMUM WAGE.

 

[jbander]

Wage is based on skill.

When a machine is responsible for the increase in productivity the gut who does nothing but turn the machine on and off isn't responsible for the increase in production the people who built the machine and wrote the computer code are and they get paid more.

Not true for CEO's. Why should it be true for more productive labor?

I already told you the labor isn't more productive it is actually less productive because the technology is responsible for the increase in production not the guy who turns on the machine. The people who actually make the machines , program them and keep them running are the ones getting the better pay.

And like I said what a CEO makes has no impact on what you make. Do you actually think if the government forced all CEOs to take a pay cut that your pay would increase?

Working the machine is what promotes higher productivity. CEOs don't work any harder.

no it's the machine itself.

One guy can monitor 3 or 4 machines because it's the machines that do all the work.

And once again what a CEO gets paid is completely irrelevant and has no impact on what people get paid.

Ceo impact what people get paid , are you that ignorant on what makes up the bottom line of a company. You puppets are such marks

most people don't work for companies with high paid CEOs

What Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk makes has never had an impact on my income and I bet it has none on yours..

anyone who collects dividends from a company losses, everyone who works for them are like every business in capitalism, they are restricted by the bottom line of the business on what they pay the people who work for them. Everyone that buys their products are effected by the price needed to polish the apple to the point that is compatible to the pay of the executives in this country. There has been bonuses higher then the distribution of dividends by the company. You have no idea what you are talking about. You corporate puppets spewing the corporate party line are comical.

And how has that affected your pay?

Most people do not work for companies with highly paid CEOs. And why do you think that if a CEO got paid less that the employees would be paid more?

Every company will pay pretty close to the market rate for any skilled labor no matter how much a CEO makes.

Stupid, I buy their products I collect their div. You just don't know what you are talking about and your questions to me proves it.

and the price of their products has no bearing on what your employer pays you.

My income has never been reduced because some CEO got a pay raise and neither has yours.

You simply are the normal mullet brained Corporate puppet reading word for word off their script.

No I never worked for any corporation.

So I know that what some corporate CEO gets paid has absolutely nothing to do with what I can earn.

Garbage , their are many

Total real family income would decrease by $9 billion...moron.

Not sure how they reached that conclusion when they reached this conclusion in that same study.

Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion,

Real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion,

64-20=44 billion in additional economic activity. Even if we subtract 9 billion in total family income that still leaves a gain of 35 billion in economic activity.

And, they did not suggest any tax breaks that could mitigate that cost.

And, with better coverage for unemployment compensation, there would still be a multiplier of 2 for those who are unemployed.

Where's your calculation for the opportunity cost you've imposed with all the new taxes required to fund the massive new welfare program you've created?

With a multiplier of 2 for that policy, any funds used would be an investment in our economy and would generate 2 dollars in economic activity for every 1 dollar spent. Thus, if we use a simple model with existing numbers, the 20 billion lost by those being unemployed could be the input for the cost of unemployment compensation. Spending 20 billion to replace that lost income would generate 40 billion in economic activity which would be effected by the multiplier. Ask any Capitalist if they want to get richer.

There is no multiplier.

When you take that 1 dollar from someone else to give to the guy who is unemployed it is not a net gain.

You need to read up on the broken windows fallacy.

You simply appeal to ignorance of economics and the multiplier effect.

There is no multiplier.

A dollar is not worth anymore than a dollar.

It's the velocity of money that matters

Garbage there are many different kinds of money multipliers , every economist in this country is laughing at you. One of the basic backbones of capitalism, Actual any economy.

 

[Supposn]

I have to explain your own link to you.....hilarious!!! ...
... Reducing low-wage employment while (maybe) increasing higher-wage employment isn't a
materially proportional increased rates of unemployment?

View attachment 457747
More high-wage workers, 0.8% fewer overall workers....sounds like the low-wage workers
are harmed while the higher-wage workers benefit.
Tell me again which part I didn't fully comprehend and which part I ignored.
Your ignorance is comical.

Toddsterpatriot, I was able to find your posted paragraph within page 1 of U.S. Congressional Budget Office’s, (i.e. CBO‘s) publication, The Effects on Employment and Family Income of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage (cbo.gov)

The referred to table 1 on page 3, provides the changes of amounts of purchasing powers and percentage proportions of all U.S. families’ incomes.
[Table 1’s purchasing power amounts are expressed in 2018 U.S. dollars; Proportions are percentage proportions total U.S. families’ incomes].

USA’s total reduced families’ purchasing power amounts are 8.8 billion of 2018 dollars and that’s a proportional reduction of 1/10 of a percent of USA families’ entire incomes. That 1/10th of a percent isn’t a materially reduced proportion of USA families’ total incomes and 8/10th of a percent reduction of USA workers employed is a bit more of a materially reduced proportion.

I suppose increases of the federal minimum wage rate more directly affect lower wage-rate employees (that account for almost 1/3 of all USA’s workers). I also suppose the increase of USA’s aggregate lower-income families’ incomes’ increased amounts and percentages of their purchasing powers more than fully compensate for their members increased unemployment rates. Jobs’ amounts and rates are no less important than their availability. Jobs of lesser wage amounts and/or wage-rates, are of lesser worth to families’ finances or to USA’s economy.

COB’s report indicates the source for table 1’s statistics’ are “monthly and annual data from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey”. The report doesn’t further comment regarding their stated “0.8 percent reduction in the number of employed workers” which is not referred to within table 1. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Blues Man]

There is no multiplier.

A dollar is not worth anymore than a dollar.

It's the velocity of money that matters

Yes, there is a multiplier. An increased velocity of money contributes to the multiplier. More people spending more money contributes to both the velocity of money and the multiplier. Thus, higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue.

Multiplier: What It Means in Finance and Economics

A multiplier refers to an input that amplifies the effect of some other variable. Learn more about the different types of multipliers in finance and investment.

www.investopedia.com

There is no multiplier never has been never will be.

And FYI taxes reduce the velocity of money they don't increase it.

So more tax revenue does nothing for the economy.

 

[Blues Man]

Wage is based on skill.

When a machine is responsible for the increase in productivity the gut who does nothing but turn the machine on and off isn't responsible for the increase in production the people who built the machine and wrote the computer code are and they get paid more.

Not true for CEO's. Why should it be true for more productive labor?

I already told you the labor isn't more productive it is actually less productive because the technology is responsible for the increase in production not the guy who turns on the machine. The people who actually make the machines , program them and keep them running are the ones getting the better pay.

And like I said what a CEO makes has no impact on what you make. Do you actually think if the government forced all CEOs to take a pay cut that your pay would increase?

Working the machine is what promotes higher productivity. CEOs don't work any harder.

no it's the machine itself.

One guy can monitor 3 or 4 machines because it's the machines that do all the work.

And once again what a CEO gets paid is completely irrelevant and has no impact on what people get paid.

Ceo impact what people get paid , are you that ignorant on what makes up the bottom line of a company. You puppets are such marks

most people don't work for companies with high paid CEOs

What Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk makes has never had an impact on my income and I bet it has none on yours..

anyone who collects dividends from a company losses, everyone who works for them are like every business in capitalism, they are restricted by the bottom line of the business on what they pay the people who work for them. Everyone that buys their products are effected by the price needed to polish the apple to the point that is compatible to the pay of the executives in this country. There has been bonuses higher then the distribution of dividends by the company. You have no idea what you are talking about. You corporate puppets spewing the corporate party line are comical.

And how has that affected your pay?

Most people do not work for companies with highly paid CEOs. And why do you think that if a CEO got paid less that the employees would be paid more?

Every company will pay pretty close to the market rate for any skilled labor no matter how much a CEO makes.

Stupid, I buy their products I collect their div. You just don't know what you are talking about and your questions to me proves it.

and the price of their products has no bearing on what your employer pays you.

My income has never been reduced because some CEO got a pay raise and neither has yours.

You simply are the normal mullet brained Corporate puppet reading word for word off their script.

No I never worked for any corporation.

So I know that what some corporate CEO gets paid has absolutely nothing to do with what I can earn.

Garbage , their are many

Total real family income would decrease by $9 billion...moron.

Not sure how they reached that conclusion when they reached this conclusion in that same study.

Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion,

Real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion,

64-20=44 billion in additional economic activity. Even if we subtract 9 billion in total family income that still leaves a gain of 35 billion in economic activity.

And, they did not suggest any tax breaks that could mitigate that cost.

And, with better coverage for unemployment compensation, there would still be a multiplier of 2 for those who are unemployed.

Where's your calculation for the opportunity cost you've imposed with all the new taxes required to fund the massive new welfare program you've created?

With a multiplier of 2 for that policy, any funds used would be an investment in our economy and would generate 2 dollars in economic activity for every 1 dollar spent. Thus, if we use a simple model with existing numbers, the 20 billion lost by those being unemployed could be the input for the cost of unemployment compensation. Spending 20 billion to replace that lost income would generate 40 billion in economic activity which would be effected by the multiplier. Ask any Capitalist if they want to get richer.

There is no multiplier.

When you take that 1 dollar from someone else to give to the guy who is unemployed it is not a net gain.

You need to read up on the broken windows fallacy.

You simply appeal to ignorance of economics and the multiplier effect.

There is no multiplier.

A dollar is not worth anymore than a dollar.

It's the velocity of money that matters

Garbage there are many different kinds of money multipliers , every economist in this country is laughing at you. One of the basic backbones of capitalism, Actual any economy.

The velocity of money is what matters.

Hello. There is No Magic Money Multiplier

Magic Multiplier Theory Veronique de Rugy discusses When Puff the Magic Multiplier Goes Poof. The belief is that when the government takes a dollar out of your

www.thestreet.com

And you don't seem to understand that the multiplier economists talk about is not due to people arbitrarily getting paid more it has to do with people depositing more money into banks or investments where the bank will loan a percentage of that money out to be used.

 

[danielpalos]

And, as has been pointed out to you multiple times, the market can adjust to a gradual increase in the MW, but that's not what you want. You want to double the MW overnight AND create a massive new welfare program that will permanently pay people who refuse to take a job that new MW PLUS the same amount in welfare benefits, AND you claim it can be done with no negative effects to the economy. Be honest for a change.

The market can also adjust to forms of price inflation for goods and services. No one is preventing capitalists from asking for tax breaks to help with the adjustment process. No need to, hate on the Poor at all.

I don't see anyone offering tax breaks to offset higher labor costs, do you?

There is nothing preventing Capitalists from calling their local representatives to federal government and asking.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no multiplier.

A dollar is not worth anymore than a dollar.

It's the velocity of money that matters

Yes, there is a multiplier. An increased velocity of money contributes to the multiplier. More people spending more money contributes to both the velocity of money and the multiplier. Thus, higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue.

Multiplier: What It Means in Finance and Economics

A multiplier refers to an input that amplifies the effect of some other variable. Learn more about the different types of multipliers in finance and investment.

www.investopedia.com

There is no multiplier never has been never will be.

And FYI taxes reduce the velocity of money they don't increase it.

So more tax revenue does nothing for the economy.

That is just you appealing to ignorance of economics. It is why it can be soo difficult to take right wingers seriously.

And, tax generation is being increased by higher paid labor paying more in taxes and creating more in demand (and adding to the velocity of money circulating). The virtual doubling of the minimum wage means all those people that had less to spend before will have more to spend and be taxed on now. People making thirty thousand dollars per year actually pay taxes (approximately $2000 according to Income Tax Calculator 2021 - USA - Salary After Tax ) on that income and individuals no longer qualify for the earned income credit at that higher wage rate (Earned Income Tax Credit Calculator - EIC).

 

[hadit]

And, as has been pointed out to you multiple times, the market can adjust to a gradual increase in the MW, but that's not what you want. You want to double the MW overnight AND create a massive new welfare program that will permanently pay people who refuse to take a job that new MW PLUS the same amount in welfare benefits, AND you claim it can be done with no negative effects to the economy. Be honest for a change.

The market can also adjust to forms of price inflation for goods and services. No one is preventing capitalists from asking for tax breaks to help with the adjustment process. No need to, hate on the Poor at all.

I don't see anyone offering tax breaks to offset higher labor costs, do you?

There is nothing preventing Capitalists from calling their local representatives to federal government and asking.

And when they don't get it, you're okay with not doubling the MW overnight? Now, this is setting aside the other stuff you want.

 

[danielpalos]

The velocity of money is what matters.

Hello. There is No Magic Money Multiplier

Magic Multiplier Theory Veronique de Rugy discusses When Puff the Magic Multiplier Goes Poof. The belief is that when the government takes a dollar out of your

www.thestreet.com

And you don't seem to understand that the multiplier economists talk about is not due to people arbitrarily getting paid more it has to do with people depositing more money into banks or investments where the bank will loan a percentage of that money out to be used.

From the article you linked:
...
The belief is that when the government takes a dollar out of your pocket, puts that dollar through the political process and decides where to spend it (based on input from special interest groups), the economy will somehow return more money in growth than the money invested, even after Washington bureaucrats take their cut. It's magic! Sadly, these arguments ignore recent empirical evidence that the costs of increased government spending far outweigh the benefits to the economy....

It describes the crowding out effect rather than the multiplier effect, and it would be true if it was actually, crowding out those dollars that would have been spent by the private sector. The usual case for many firms is to try to reduce their tax burden by finding tax havens instead of actually spending the money on raising wages.

It depends on the policy. In the case of increasing the minimum wage, it is not coming from taxes levied but being paid in the usual and customary manner of the private sector, and then spent by all those individuals now making the higher minimum wage. Higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue, ceteris paribus.

Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion,

Real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion,

 

[danielpalos]

And when they don't get it, you're okay with not doubling the MW overnight? Now, this is setting aside the other stuff you want.

Why would they not get it? The previous guy in the Oval Office was willing to, hand out tax breaks almost like candy, even during the best of right wing economic times. Are you willing to admit that you prefer to hate on the Poor rather than have them receive any benefit under our form of Capitalism?

 

[hadit]

And when they don't get it, you're okay with not doubling the MW overnight? Now, this is setting aside the other stuff you want.

Why would they not get it? The previous guy in the Oval Office was willing to, hand out tax breaks almost like candy, even during the best of right wing economic times. Are you willing to admit that you prefer to hate on the Poor rather than have them receive any benefit under our form of Capitalism?

Is the previous guy still there? No. And what's with the last part of your screed? That has to be one of the stupidest things I've seen in a long time.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I have to explain your own link to you.....hilarious!!! ...
... Reducing low-wage employment while (maybe) increasing higher-wage employment isn't a
materially proportional increased rates of unemployment?

View attachment 457747
More high-wage workers, 0.8% fewer overall workers....sounds like the low-wage workers
are harmed while the higher-wage workers benefit.
Tell me again which part I didn't fully comprehend and which part I ignored.
Your ignorance is comical.

Toddsterpatriot, I was able to find your posted paragraph within page 1 of U.S. Congressional Budget Office’s, (i.e. CBO‘s) publication, The Effects on Employment and Family Income of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage (cbo.gov)

The referred to table 1 on page 3, provides the changes of amounts of purchasing powers and percentage proportions of all U.S. families’ incomes.
[Table 1’s purchasing power amounts are expressed in 2018 U.S. dollars; Proportions are percentage proportions total U.S. families’ incomes].

USA’s total reduced families’ purchasing power amounts are 8.8 billion of 2018 dollars and that’s a proportional reduction of 1/10 of a percent of USA families’ entire incomes. That 1/10th of a percent isn’t a materially reduced proportion of USA families’ total incomes and 8/10th of a percent reduction of USA workers employed is a bit more of a materially reduced proportion.

I suppose increases of the federal minimum wage rate more directly affect lower wage-rate employees (that account for almost 1/3 of all USA’s workers). I also suppose the increase of USA’s aggregate lower-income families’ incomes’ increased amounts and percentages of their purchasing powers more than fully compensate for their members increased unemployment rates. Jobs’ amounts and rates are no less important than their availability. Jobs of lesser wage amounts and/or wage-rates, are of lesser worth to families’ finances or to USA’s economy.

COB’s report indicates the source for table 1’s statistics’ are “monthly and annual data from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey”. The report doesn’t further comment regarding their stated “0.8 percent reduction in the number of employed workers” which is not referred to within table 1. Respectfully, Supposn

I suppose increases of the federal minimum wage rate more directly affect lower wage-rate employees (that account for almost 1/3 of all USA’s workers).

Fewer than 2 million made minimum wage or below in 2019.

I also suppose the increase of USA’s aggregate lower-income families’ incomes’ increased amounts and percentages of their purchasing powers more than fully compensate for their members increased unemployment rates.

I'm sure the 1.4 million (CBO estimate) who would lose their job appreciate your "suppose".

Jobs’ amounts and rates are no less important than their availability.

Amounts and rates aren't very important to the new, unskilled worker who can't get one because
he's been priced out of the job market.....maybe forever.

 

[danielpalos]

And when they don't get it, you're okay with not doubling the MW overnight? Now, this is setting aside the other stuff you want.

Why would they not get it? The previous guy in the Oval Office was willing to, hand out tax breaks almost like candy, even during the best of right wing economic times. Are you willing to admit that you prefer to hate on the Poor rather than have them receive any benefit under our form of Capitalism?

Is the previous guy still there? No. And what's with the last part of your screed? That has to be one of the stupidest things I've seen in a long time.

Right wingers could be proclaiming, sure, we have no problem increasing the minimum wage if you give us a tax break to help out with the price shock of that new cost. Capitalism should be wonderful even for minimum wage labor.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And when they don't get it, you're okay with not doubling the MW overnight? Now, this is setting aside the other stuff you want.

Why would they not get it? The previous guy in the Oval Office was willing to, hand out tax breaks almost like candy, even during the best of right wing economic times. Are you willing to admit that you prefer to hate on the Poor rather than have them receive any benefit under our form of Capitalism?

Is the previous guy still there? No. And what's with the last part of your screed? That has to be one of the stupidest things I've seen in a long time.

Right wingers could be proclaiming, sure, we have no problem increasing the minimum wage if you give us a tax break to help out with the price shock of that new cost. Capitalism should be wonderful even for minimum wage labor.

What sort of tax break do you recommend to cover a doubling of the minimum wage?

Any specifics?

 

[danielpalos]

And when they don't get it, you're okay with not doubling the MW overnight? Now, this is setting aside the other stuff you want.

Why would they not get it? The previous guy in the Oval Office was willing to, hand out tax breaks almost like candy, even during the best of right wing economic times. Are you willing to admit that you prefer to hate on the Poor rather than have them receive any benefit under our form of Capitalism?

Is the previous guy still there? No. And what's with the last part of your screed? That has to be one of the stupidest things I've seen in a long time.

Right wingers could be proclaiming, sure, we have no problem increasing the minimum wage if you give us a tax break to help out with the price shock of that new cost. Capitalism should be wonderful even for minimum wage labor.

What sort of tax break do you recommend to cover a doubling of the minimum wage?

Any specifics?

A good excuse for a payroll tax break or even a tax credit?

 

[dblack]

In the short term, .... (insert hand jerking off emoji)

In the long term, the market rebalances and, for those who don't lose their jobs, they're right back where they started.