$15 minimum wage would destroy 1.4 Million jobs

[danielpalos]

There is no multiplier on government welfare there never was

There is no multiplier on MW increases in salary.

If you're going to use a term at least use it correctly. In economics the concept of a multiplier is used for money deposited into banks then lent out.

You confuse crowding with the multiplier. Any multiplier to have any effect must overcome any deficit from crowding.

And it never does since the government always runs at a deficit.

The concept of an economic multiplier is only applicable to money deposited in banks and then lent out.

You confuse tax cut economics with an outlay for fiscal multiplier purposes. Tax cuts tend to benefit the richest the mostest simply because they don't tend to spend most of their realized gains creating more demand, as Labor as the less wealthy must under our form of Capitalism.

I'm not confused at all.

There is no way any extra tax revenue from a MW increase will ever lessen the deficits we run

Wouldn't it depend on taxes generated? (Income Tax Calculator 2021 - USA - Salary After Tax)

A hypothetical wage earner making around 15 thousand a year would pay approximately $260 in taxes.
A hypothetical wage earner making around 30 thousand a year would pay approximately $1,915 in taxes.
A hypothetical wage earner making around 40 thousand a year would pay approximately $3,115 in taxes.

Let's assume there are approximately 84 million people making the minimum wage now.

84 million times $260 equals $21,840,000,000
84 million times $1,915 equals $160,860,000,000
84 million times $3,115 equals $261,660,000,000

Thus, raising the minimum wage can raise more tax revenue versus simply taxing businesses.

Denmark McDonald's Workers Get Paid Vastly Higher Wages

McDonald's has warned that wage increases in the U.S. would force franchisees to raise menu prices.

www.businessinsider.com

It always raises more tax revenue, You are debating a person that has no clue what they are talking about. and these clowns idea that $15 goes back to being the same as $7.25 in a short time is bullshit

It always raises more tax revenue,

No it doesn't.

It must. Simple math simply doesn't lie.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no multiplier on government welfare there never was

There is no multiplier on MW increases in salary.

If you're going to use a term at least use it correctly. In economics the concept of a multiplier is used for money deposited into banks then lent out.

You confuse crowding with the multiplier. Any multiplier to have any effect must overcome any deficit from crowding.

And it never does since the government always runs at a deficit.

The concept of an economic multiplier is only applicable to money deposited in banks and then lent out.

You confuse tax cut economics with an outlay for fiscal multiplier purposes. Tax cuts tend to benefit the richest the mostest simply because they don't tend to spend most of their realized gains creating more demand, as Labor as the less wealthy must under our form of Capitalism.

I'm not confused at all.

There is no way any extra tax revenue from a MW increase will ever lessen the deficits we run

Wouldn't it depend on taxes generated? (Income Tax Calculator 2021 - USA - Salary After Tax)

A hypothetical wage earner making around 15 thousand a year would pay approximately $260 in taxes.
A hypothetical wage earner making around 30 thousand a year would pay approximately $1,915 in taxes.
A hypothetical wage earner making around 40 thousand a year would pay approximately $3,115 in taxes.

Let's assume there are approximately 84 million people making the minimum wage now.

84 million times $260 equals $21,840,000,000
84 million times $1,915 equals $160,860,000,000
84 million times $3,115 equals $261,660,000,000

Thus, raising the minimum wage can raise more tax revenue versus simply taxing businesses.

Denmark McDonald's Workers Get Paid Vastly Higher Wages

McDonald's has warned that wage increases in the U.S. would force franchisees to raise menu prices.

www.businessinsider.com

It always raises more tax revenue, You are debating a person that has no clue what they are talking about. and these clowns idea that $15 goes back to being the same as $7.25 in a short time is bullshit

It always raises more tax revenue,

No it doesn't.

It must. Simple math simply doesn't lie.

21% versus 12% or 10%......that's why you're wrong.

 

[dblack]

Simple math simply doesn't lie.

But simpletons who pretend to know math do lie. A lot.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no multiplier on government welfare there never was

There is no multiplier on MW increases in salary.

If you're going to use a term at least use it correctly. In economics the concept of a multiplier is used for money deposited into banks then lent out.

You confuse crowding with the multiplier. Any multiplier to have any effect must overcome any deficit from crowding.

And it never does since the government always runs at a deficit.

The concept of an economic multiplier is only applicable to money deposited in banks and then lent out.

You confuse tax cut economics with an outlay for fiscal multiplier purposes. Tax cuts tend to benefit the richest the mostest simply because they don't tend to spend most of their realized gains creating more demand, as Labor as the less wealthy must under our form of Capitalism.

I'm not confused at all.

There is no way any extra tax revenue from a MW increase will ever lessen the deficits we run

Wouldn't it depend on taxes generated? (Income Tax Calculator 2021 - USA - Salary After Tax)

A hypothetical wage earner making around 15 thousand a year would pay approximately $260 in taxes.
A hypothetical wage earner making around 30 thousand a year would pay approximately $1,915 in taxes.
A hypothetical wage earner making around 40 thousand a year would pay approximately $3,115 in taxes.

Let's assume there are approximately 84 million people making the minimum wage now.

84 million times $260 equals $21,840,000,000
84 million times $1,915 equals $160,860,000,000
84 million times $3,115 equals $261,660,000,000

Thus, raising the minimum wage can raise more tax revenue versus simply taxing businesses.

Denmark McDonald's Workers Get Paid Vastly Higher Wages

McDonald's has warned that wage increases in the U.S. would force franchisees to raise menu prices.

www.businessinsider.com

It always raises more tax revenue, You are debating a person that has no clue what they are talking about. and these clowns idea that $15 goes back to being the same as $7.25 in a short time is bullshit

It always raises more tax revenue,

No it doesn't.

It must. Simple math simply doesn't lie.

21% versus 12% or 10%......that's why you're wrong.

Means nothing since some large corporations pay no income tax anyway.

 

[danielpalos]

Simple math simply doesn't lie.

But simpletons who pretend to know math do lie. A lot.

I showed my work. Your red herring is irrelevant and a diversion.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no multiplier on government welfare there never was

There is no multiplier on MW increases in salary.

If you're going to use a term at least use it correctly. In economics the concept of a multiplier is used for money deposited into banks then lent out.

You confuse crowding with the multiplier. Any multiplier to have any effect must overcome any deficit from crowding.

And it never does since the government always runs at a deficit.

The concept of an economic multiplier is only applicable to money deposited in banks and then lent out.

You confuse tax cut economics with an outlay for fiscal multiplier purposes. Tax cuts tend to benefit the richest the mostest simply because they don't tend to spend most of their realized gains creating more demand, as Labor as the less wealthy must under our form of Capitalism.

I'm not confused at all.

There is no way any extra tax revenue from a MW increase will ever lessen the deficits we run

Wouldn't it depend on taxes generated? (Income Tax Calculator 2021 - USA - Salary After Tax)

A hypothetical wage earner making around 15 thousand a year would pay approximately $260 in taxes.
A hypothetical wage earner making around 30 thousand a year would pay approximately $1,915 in taxes.
A hypothetical wage earner making around 40 thousand a year would pay approximately $3,115 in taxes.

Let's assume there are approximately 84 million people making the minimum wage now.

84 million times $260 equals $21,840,000,000
84 million times $1,915 equals $160,860,000,000
84 million times $3,115 equals $261,660,000,000

Thus, raising the minimum wage can raise more tax revenue versus simply taxing businesses.

Denmark McDonald's Workers Get Paid Vastly Higher Wages

McDonald's has warned that wage increases in the U.S. would force franchisees to raise menu prices.

www.businessinsider.com

It always raises more tax revenue, You are debating a person that has no clue what they are talking about. and these clowns idea that $15 goes back to being the same as $7.25 in a short time is bullshit

It always raises more tax revenue,

No it doesn't.

It must. Simple math simply doesn't lie.

21% versus 12% or 10%......that's why you're wrong.

Higher paid labor can still generate more tax revenue due to the law of large numbers.

The corporate income tax is the third-largest source of federal revenue, although substantially smaller than the individual income tax and payroll taxes. It raised $230.2 billion in fiscal year 2019, 6.6 percent of all federal revenue and 1.1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). The relative importance of the corporate tax as a source of revenue declined sharply from the 1950s to the mid-1980s. Since that time, it has averaged less than two percent of GDP (figure 1).--

How does the corporate income tax work?

The United States taxes the profits of US resident C-corporations (named after the relevant subchapter of the Internal Revenue Code) at 21 percent. Taxable corporate...

www.taxpolicycenter.org

---
Half of all federal revenue (50 percent) comes from individual income taxes. The income tax is generally progressive: higher-income households generally pay a larger share of their income in income taxes than lower-income households do.
...
The corporate income tax is the third-largest source of federal revenue, although substantially smaller than the individual income tax and payroll taxes. It raised $230.2 billion in fiscal year 2019, 6.6 percent of all federal revenue and 1.1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). The relative importance of the corporate tax as a source of revenue declined sharply from the 1950s to the mid-1980s. Since that time, it has averaged less than two percent of GDP (figure 1)....--

Policy Basics: Where Do Federal Tax Revenues Come From? | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

In fiscal year 2019, the federal government spent $4.4 trillion on the services it provides, such as national defense, health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security benefits for...

www.cbpp.org

 

[jbander]

No it doesn't because it costs more than a dollar to get that dollar to the government in the form of a tax payment and then back into the economy.
And the dollar paid in welfare by the government is not worth any more than a dollar it isn't magically multiplied.

That is not what happens when wages are increased. What taxes are being taken out of the economy by employers having to pay higher wages?

All taxes are money that is removed from the economy.

and what you don't seem to understand is that the actual cost of an employee is more than their salary.

You seem to think that if you give a person a 100% pay raise that the only cost to the employer is the salary increase. But that employer will have to pay higher payroll taxes, higher workers' comp fees, higher state and federal unemployment taxes so unless that employer can pass all those costs on to his customers he will see a net decrease in profits.

And there is a point in every sector of the economy where people will stop buying a product if the price rises high enough. And it won't matter if a very small percentage of the population will have a little more money because it will most likely not be enough to counter the loss of current customers as they see their purchasing power decline

The increase in real earnings is not coming from taxes but from the private sector. Thus, your premise is wrong from the start.

You asked what taxes are being taken out of the economy.

ALL taxes are money that is removed from the economy.

Stupid again , you tell us the difference between me spending a dollar and the government spending a dollar as far as driving the markets are concerned , This is the most stupid comment of the month, Quoting Einstein here. "ALL taxes are money that is removed from the economy." what a goofball.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Higher paid labor can still generate more tax revenue due to the law of large numbers.

Gibberish.

law of large numbers. n. The rule or theorem that a large number of items chosen at random from a population will, on the average, have the characteristics of the population.

 

[Blues Man]

There is no multiplier on government welfare there never was

There is no multiplier on MW increases in salary.

If you're going to use a term at least use it correctly. In economics the concept of a multiplier is used for money deposited into banks then lent out.

You confuse crowding with the multiplier. Any multiplier to have any effect must overcome any deficit from crowding.

And it never does since the government always runs at a deficit.

The concept of an economic multiplier is only applicable to money deposited in banks and then lent out.

You confuse tax cut economics with an outlay for fiscal multiplier purposes. Tax cuts tend to benefit the richest the mostest simply because they don't tend to spend most of their realized gains creating more demand, as Labor as the less wealthy must under our form of Capitalism.

I'm not confused at all.

There is no way any extra tax revenue from a MW increase will ever lessen the deficits we run

Wouldn't it depend on taxes generated? (Income Tax Calculator 2021 - USA - Salary After Tax)

A hypothetical wage earner making around 15 thousand a year would pay approximately $260 in taxes.
A hypothetical wage earner making around 30 thousand a year would pay approximately $1,915 in taxes.
A hypothetical wage earner making around 40 thousand a year would pay approximately $3,115 in taxes.

Let's assume there are approximately 84 million people making the minimum wage now.

84 million times $260 equals $21,840,000,000
84 million times $1,915 equals $160,860,000,000
84 million times $3,115 equals $261,660,000,000

Thus, raising the minimum wage can raise more tax revenue versus simply taxing businesses.

Denmark McDonald's Workers Get Paid Vastly Higher Wages

McDonald's has warned that wage increases in the U.S. would force franchisees to raise menu prices.

www.businessinsider.com

how many times do I have to tell you that the people making 7.25 an hour are going to be the ones most likely to lose their jobs?

So your tax revenue forecasts are wrong and the MW does increase the taxes businesses pay by more that just the cost of the salary increase

 

[Blues Man]

No it doesn't because it costs more than a dollar to get that dollar to the government in the form of a tax payment and then back into the economy.
And the dollar paid in welfare by the government is not worth any more than a dollar it isn't magically multiplied.

That is not what happens when wages are increased. What taxes are being taken out of the economy by employers having to pay higher wages?

All taxes are money that is removed from the economy.

and what you don't seem to understand is that the actual cost of an employee is more than their salary.

You seem to think that if you give a person a 100% pay raise that the only cost to the employer is the salary increase. But that employer will have to pay higher payroll taxes, higher workers' comp fees, higher state and federal unemployment taxes so unless that employer can pass all those costs on to his customers he will see a net decrease in profits.

And there is a point in every sector of the economy where people will stop buying a product if the price rises high enough. And it won't matter if a very small percentage of the population will have a little more money because it will most likely not be enough to counter the loss of current customers as they see their purchasing power decline

The increase in real earnings is not coming from taxes but from the private sector. Thus, your premise is wrong from the start.

You asked what taxes are being taken out of the economy.

ALL taxes are money that is removed from the economy.

Stupid again , you tell us the difference between me spending a dollar and the government spending a dollar as far as driving the markets are concerned , This is the most stupid comment of the month, Quoting Einstein here. "ALL taxes are money that is removed from the economy." what a goofball.

So you think it doesn't cost more than a dollar for the government to give a dollar to someone on welfare?

You're utterly ignorant if you do

 

[Blues Man]

There is no multiplier on government welfare there never was

There is no multiplier on MW increases in salary.

If you're going to use a term at least use it correctly. In economics the concept of a multiplier is used for money deposited into banks then lent out.

You confuse crowding with the multiplier. Any multiplier to have any effect must overcome any deficit from crowding.

And it never does since the government always runs at a deficit.

The concept of an economic multiplier is only applicable to money deposited in banks and then lent out.

You confuse tax cut economics with an outlay for fiscal multiplier purposes. Tax cuts tend to benefit the richest the mostest simply because they don't tend to spend most of their realized gains creating more demand, as Labor as the less wealthy must under our form of Capitalism.

I'm not confused at all.

There is no way any extra tax revenue from a MW increase will ever lessen the deficits we run

Wouldn't it depend on taxes generated? (Income Tax Calculator 2021 - USA - Salary After Tax)

A hypothetical wage earner making around 15 thousand a year would pay approximately $260 in taxes.
A hypothetical wage earner making around 30 thousand a year would pay approximately $1,915 in taxes.
A hypothetical wage earner making around 40 thousand a year would pay approximately $3,115 in taxes.

Let's assume there are approximately 84 million people making the minimum wage now.

84 million times $260 equals $21,840,000,000
84 million times $1,915 equals $160,860,000,000
84 million times $3,115 equals $261,660,000,000

Thus, raising the minimum wage can raise more tax revenue versus simply taxing businesses.

Denmark McDonald's Workers Get Paid Vastly Higher Wages

McDonald's has warned that wage increases in the U.S. would force franchisees to raise menu prices.

www.businessinsider.com

It always raises more tax revenue, You are debating a person that has no clue what they are talking about. and these clowns idea that $15 goes back to being the same as $7.25 in a short time is bullshit

it won't raise the revenue you idiots think it will because it's the people who are miking 7.25 now that will be most likely to lose their jobs.

The people making closer to 15 an hour will not lose their jobs so the very people you think this will help the most are the ones who will find themselves jobless

 

[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, page 1 of The Effects on Employment and Family Income of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage (cbo.gov) link has a paragraph apparently matching what you posted as attributable to a U.S. Congressional Budget Office’s, (CBO‘s) publication. This post is referring to that specific publication. Excerpted from that page 1:

“According to CBO’s median estimate, under the $15 option, 1.3 million workers who would otherwise be employed would be jobless in an average week in 2025. (That would equal a 0.8 percent reduction in the number of employed workers.) CBO estimates that there is about a two-thirds chance that the change in employment would lie between about zero and a reduction of 3.7 million workers (see Table 1). In addition, in an average week in 2025, the $15 option would increase the wages of 17 million workers whose wages would otherwise be below $15 per hour, CBO estimates. The wages of many of the 10 million workers whose wages would be slightly above the new federal minimum would also increase”.

Referring particularly to the afore mentioned CBO’s publication’s pages 1 and 3, their publications regarding the “Raise the Wage Act” proposal all describe a proposal that would be net beneficial to our nation’s economic and social wellbeing. I‘ve begun looking forward to your whining protests that interpret their publications to be otherwise.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[danielpalos]

Higher paid labor can still generate more tax revenue due to the law of large numbers.

Gibberish.

law of large numbers. n. The rule or theorem that a large number of items chosen at random from a population will, on the average, have the characteristics of the population.

What is the ratio of employees to corporations on average?

How much income tax revenue is generated by corporations versus labor?

 

[danielpalos]

how many times do I have to tell you that the people making 7.25 an hour are going to be the ones most likely to lose their jobs?

So your tax revenue forecasts are wrong and the MW does increase the taxes businesses pay by more that just the cost of the salary increase

Small businesses fail all the time; and corporate downsizing happens merely for the bottom line not because you care about minimum wage jobs for labor.

And, higher paid labor creates more demand and generates more tax revenue; that means more jobs will also be needed to meet the greater demand.

 

[danielpalos]

No it doesn't because it costs more than a dollar to get that dollar to the government in the form of a tax payment and then back into the economy.
And the dollar paid in welfare by the government is not worth any more than a dollar it isn't magically multiplied.

That is not what happens when wages are increased. What taxes are being taken out of the economy by employers having to pay higher wages?

All taxes are money that is removed from the economy.

and what you don't seem to understand is that the actual cost of an employee is more than their salary.

You seem to think that if you give a person a 100% pay raise that the only cost to the employer is the salary increase. But that employer will have to pay higher payroll taxes, higher workers' comp fees, higher state and federal unemployment taxes so unless that employer can pass all those costs on to his customers he will see a net decrease in profits.

And there is a point in every sector of the economy where people will stop buying a product if the price rises high enough. And it won't matter if a very small percentage of the population will have a little more money because it will most likely not be enough to counter the loss of current customers as they see their purchasing power decline

The increase in real earnings is not coming from taxes but from the private sector. Thus, your premise is wrong from the start.

You asked what taxes are being taken out of the economy.

ALL taxes are money that is removed from the economy.

Stupid again , you tell us the difference between me spending a dollar and the government spending a dollar as far as driving the markets are concerned , This is the most stupid comment of the month, Quoting Einstein here. "ALL taxes are money that is removed from the economy." what a goofball.

So you think it doesn't cost more than a dollar for the government to give a dollar to someone on welfare?

You're utterly ignorant if you do

Yes, it does. That is why raising the minimum wage is more cost effective. Even unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective than means testing for welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

it won't raise the revenue you idiots think it will because it's the people who are miking 7.25 now that will be most likely to lose their jobs.

The people making closer to 15 an hour will not lose their jobs so the very people you think this will help the most are the ones who will find themselves jobless

The numbers from the CBO report you cited says the opposite.

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,

It shows the difference between those who keep their jobs at the higher wage rate and those who lose their jobs at the lower wage rate.

 

[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, page 1 of The Effects on Employment and Family Income of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage (cbo.gov) link has a paragraph apparently matching what you posted as attributable to a U.S. Congressional Budget Office’s, (CBO‘s) publication. This post is referring to that specific publication. Excerpted from that page 1:

“According to CBO’s median estimate, under the $15 option, 1.3 million workers who would otherwise be employed would be jobless in an average week in 2025. (That would equal a 0.8 percent reduction in the number of employed workers.) CBO estimates that there is about a two-thirds chance that the change in employment would lie between about zero and a reduction of 3.7 million workers (see Table 1). In addition, in an average week in 2025, the $15 option would increase the wages of 17 million workers whose wages would otherwise be below $15 per hour, CBO estimates. The wages of many of the 10 million workers whose wages would be slightly above the new federal minimum would also increase”.

Referring particularly to the afore mentioned CBO’s publication’s pages 1 and 3, their publications regarding the “Raise the Wage Act” proposal all describe a proposal that would be net beneficial to our nation’s economic and social wellbeing. I‘ve begun looking forward to your whining protests that interpret their publications to be otherwise.
Respectfully, Supposn

Referring particularly to the afore mentioned CBO’s publication’s pages 1 and 3, their publications regarding the “Raise the Wage Act” proposal all describe a proposal that would be net beneficial to our nation’s economic and social wellbeing.

^Page 2 refutes your claim.

No need for me to interpret their publications when I can simply post from them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Higher paid labor can still generate more tax revenue due to the law of large numbers.

Gibberish.

law of large numbers. n. The rule or theorem that a large number of items chosen at random from a population will, on the average, have the characteristics of the population.

What is the ratio of employees to corporations on average?

How much income tax revenue is generated by corporations versus labor?

What is the ratio of employees to corporations on average?

Irrelevant.

How much income tax revenue is generated by corporations versus labor?

What is the tax rate on corporate income versus the tax rate on minimum wage workers?

 

[Supposn]

No need for me to interpret their publications when I can simply post from them.

ToddsterPatriot, I suppose you may try to read what you cut- paste-n-post, but you apparently do not understand it, or you simply lack judgement. Families exceeding three times their poverty thresholds have always been and are expected in the foreseeable future to be a minority of all U.S. families.

USA totals of families within brackets of incomes not exceeding three times their poverty thresholds, are the majority of USA’s families. Only aggregate families within the higher income brackets, (a minority of USA’s families) are projected to lose some of their incomes’ purchasing powers. The majority of USA Families’ are projected to increase their aggregate incomes’ purchasing powers by a range from 7.7 to 14.2 billion dollars and 5.2% to 3.5% of proportional increases.

USA’s families’ total incomes’ purchasing powers are projected to be reduce. Due to the increases of the federal minimum wage rate, USA’s entire family incomes’ total purchasing powers are projected to be reduced by a net 8.8 billion dollars and a proportional reduction of LESS THAN 1/10 of 1 PERCENT.

Due to the minimum wage rate increases, there are net projected reductions of 1.3 million people in poverty.

The projected increases of unemployment are a median of 1.3 million, but it could be as much as 3.7 million workers. But USA employees are projected to see increases of their average weekly earnings; The projections are for 17 million of them directly, and potentially an additional 10.3 of them indirectly are projected to be increased.

These statistical amounts and proportions are found within table 1 on page 3 of The Effects on Employment and Family Income of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage (cbo.gov) . U.S. Congressional Budget Office cites they used monthly and annual data from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey to prepare that table. Regardless of your continuous whining, something very similar to the “Raise the Wage Act” proposal will inevitably be passed by a U.S. congress and enacted into law by a U.S. president. (It will, as all increases to our federal minimum wage rate have been), of net improvement to USA’s economic and social wellbeing. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No need for me to interpret their publications when I can simply post from them.

ToddsterPatriot, I suppose you may try to read what you cut- paste-n-post, but you apparently do not understand it, or you simply lack judgement. Families exceeding three times their poverty thresholds have always been and are expected in the foreseeable future to be a minority of all U.S. families.

USA totals of families within brackets of incomes not exceeding three times their poverty thresholds, are the majority of USA’s families. Only aggregate families within the higher income brackets, (a minority of USA’s families) are projected to lose some of their incomes’ purchasing powers. The majority of USA Families’ are projected to increase their aggregate incomes’ purchasing powers by a range from 7.7 to 14.2 billion dollars and 5.2% to 3.5% of proportional increases.

USA’s families’ total incomes’ purchasing powers are projected to be reduce. Due to the increases of the federal minimum wage rate, USA’s entire family incomes’ total purchasing powers are projected to be reduced by a net 8.8 billion dollars and a proportional reduction of LESS THAN 1/10 of 1 PERCENT.

Due to the minimum wage rate increases, there are net projected reductions of 1.3 million people in poverty.

The projected increases of unemployment are a median of 1.3 million, but it could be as much as 3.7 million workers. But USA employees are projected to see increases of their average weekly earnings; The projections are for 17 million of them directly, and potentially an additional 10.3 of them indirectly are projected to be increased.

These statistical amounts and proportions are found within table 1 on page 3 of The Effects on Employment and Family Income of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage (cbo.gov) . U.S. Congressional Budget Office cites they used monthly and annual data from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey to prepare that table. Regardless of your continuous whining, something very similar to the “Raise the Wage Act” proposal will inevitably be passed by a U.S. congress and enacted into law by a U.S. president. (It will, as all increases to our federal minimum wage rate have been), of net improvement to USA’s economic and social wellbeing. Respectfully, Supposn

I suppose you may try to read what you cut- paste-n-post, but you apparently do not understand it, or you simply lack judgement.

I lack judgement? The CBO said the $15 minimum wage would reduce employment, reduce business income, reduce the nation's output, reduce the stock of capital, raise prices and reduce total real family income.....and according to you, that's a net benefit to our economic well being.

Hilarious!!!