$15 minimum wage would destroy 1.4 Million jobs

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,176
Reaction score
6,571
Points
280
What is to the contrary?

In economics, the marginal propensity to consume (MPC) is a metric that quantifies induced consumption, the concept that the increase in personal consumer spending (consumption) occurs with an increase in disposable income (income after taxes and transfers). -- Marginal propensity to consume - Wikipedia
You keep ignoring the many that you will throw out of work and into dependence on welfare.
There is no law requiring capitalists to cut jobs when they could simply and easily pass on that cost to their consumers.
You clearly have no idea how hard it is for a single company to raise prices if the competition is not also doing it. If they raise prices while others do not, they lose business. Sane people know that.
I only clearly have some idea why you keep missing the point about a Statutory change to the minimum wage. It is why I have a difficult time believing right wingers are serious about the topics they allege to care about.

I have stated more than thrice (after thrice it is just a vice), that all of that single company's competition is going to be in the same boat regarding a Statutory minimum wage.
It sounds like you're admitting that prices would immediately go up, thus nullifying part of the benefit of higher wages. Sure, you get more in your paycheck, but then everything costs more at the same time.
Price inflation happens all the time even without a wage increase. Why do you believe price inflation would be worse with a wage increase than without a wage increase?
Because in some cases , you're nearly doubling labor costs, and you want to do it overnight. Over half the workforce would suddenly cost more to employ. You cannot do that without a sharp price increase.
 

bear513

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
64,556
Reaction score
12,317
Points
2,180
We need to force owners to:

Not raise prices

Not automate

Not to lay off workers

Not to cut hours

Not to go out of business

Then the new minimum wage law would work! !!!
Corporate downsizing for the bottom line works even with no increase in wages. Right wingers only seem to complain when the Poor may benefit.
How would they benefit if no jobs
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,176
Reaction score
6,571
Points
280
Democrats don't like allowing businesses to keep more of the money they earn. You know that, and it would nullify some of the so-called benefit you keep touting of more taxes paid by workers. In essence, you're shifting the tax burden from business to labor. Is that what you intend? And you can't change UC the way you want to and not have it become welfare.
Not at all. It merely seems that way to right wingers who offer nothing but repeal instead of any better capital solutions at lower capital cost.
So why do you want to shift the tax burden from business onto the workers?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,666
Reaction score
3,385
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Because those keeping their job will outnumber those who lose their job
Fewer than 50% will lose their job?
This is you trying to come up with a positive?
You are the one making up that "statistic".

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,


How many employers can afford to fire half of their minimum wage staff and remain competitive? And, those who remain will be making more money, creating more demand, and generating more tax revenue to help with the multiplier.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,666
Reaction score
3,385
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
A too low of a minimum wage is not beneficial
The minimum is still zero.

That's what you've earned for the last 10 years? Longer?
Only if you indulge in the right wing fantasy made available by appeals to ignorance. The minimum wage can't be zero since we have the cost of an alleged war on poverty to consider and account for. Right wingers simply keep proving they are for "socializing costs but privatizing profits for the benefit of the Richest."
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,666
Reaction score
3,385
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
That's exactly my point. Prices will go up across the board.

So people will be buying less and what they do buy will be more expensive.

We're not talking about one place raising its prices while everyone else doesn't. Every business that employs people at less than 15 an hour will have to raise prices to cover the additional expense.
People with more money to spend will be buying more as well, even if some price inflation happens.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,666
Reaction score
3,385
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Whining ToddsterPatriot and Blues Man can’t handle the truth!!
Congressional Budget Office’s published projections regarding the proposed “Raise the Wage” bill describe a proposal net beneficial to our economic and social wellbeing.
Proportional to incomes, The Proposal’s particularly of greater financial benefit to USA’s aggregate lower wage rate worker and lower income families.
Respectfully, Supposn

Refer to page 3, table 1, " Effects of Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage on Employment, Income, and Poverty, 2025"
within https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf
Tell me how can something increase the net revenue of the government but still result in a 56 billion dollar addition to the deficit?

How can the people who lost their jobs be counted as being lifted out of poverty?
It is right wingers who insist on their alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; that is merely discretionary spending not entitlement spending.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,666
Reaction score
3,385
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
And the people who lose their jobs won't. The people who keep their jobs will have decreased purchasing power so it ain't gonna be the big economic lift you think it will be.
Why do you believe persons nearly doubling their wage will have decreased purchasing power? Statements like that are usually nothing but right wing propaganda yet you would have us believe you are not a right winger.
The people making 7.25 an hour now are going to be the ones that lose their jobs first so there won't be a huge number of people who actually see a doubling of their pay.

This is the CBO's prediction and if you had a single logical brain cell it would make sense to you.

And if you actually read what I have written I said it's the people who are making close to 15 an hour now that will see their purchasing power decrease. The people making 7. 25 an hour now won't have any purchasing power because they will lose their jobs. How many people do you think make the federal MW anyway? FYI it's less than 2% of all workers.
That is just you ignoring the CBO report you like to cite.

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,


Those who keep their jobs will outnumber those who lose their jobs and those keeping their jobs will be spending more and creating more demand along with paying more in tax revenue.

And, more comprehensive unemployment compensation can mitigate the loss of real earnings of those disemployed.
If I am citing from the CBO report how am I ignoring it? The CBO report also says that the 15 an hour wage will add 56 billion to the budget deficits. So tell me if the deficit increases how do you figure that the net revenue to the government in taxes increases?


Look 75% of people already make 15 an hour or more

10% make less than 11 an hour

2% make the federal minimum wage.

Now the people most likely to be laid off are going to be the people making 7.25 an hour so they will not be spending more because as a group.

The people who make 11 - 15 an hour now will see a small increase in wages if they don't get laid off but prices will have to go up which will negate some of their newfound purchasing power

The 75% of people who make 15 an hour and up will not get any raises but they will see the price of everything they buy increase so their purchasing power gets eroded the most.
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,


Those keeping their job and spending money at a higher rate and higher marginal propensity to consume is still more than the cost of those losing their job and adding to the deficit. More shovel ready jobs and more comprehensive unemployment compensation can mitigate it to the point where it is moot.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,666
Reaction score
3,385
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
What is to the contrary?

In economics, the marginal propensity to consume (MPC) is a metric that quantifies induced consumption, the concept that the increase in personal consumer spending (consumption) occurs with an increase in disposable income (income after taxes and transfers). -- Marginal propensity to consume - Wikipedia
You keep ignoring the many that you will throw out of work and into dependence on welfare.
There is no law requiring capitalists to cut jobs when they could simply and easily pass on that cost to their consumers.
You clearly have no idea how hard it is for a single company to raise prices if the competition is not also doing it. If they raise prices while others do not, they lose business. Sane people know that.
I only clearly have some idea why you keep missing the point about a Statutory change to the minimum wage. It is why I have a difficult time believing right wingers are serious about the topics they allege to care about.

I have stated more than thrice (after thrice it is just a vice), that all of that single company's competition is going to be in the same boat regarding a Statutory minimum wage.
It sounds like you're admitting that prices would immediately go up, thus nullifying part of the benefit of higher wages. Sure, you get more in your paycheck, but then everything costs more at the same time.
Price inflation happens all the time even without a wage increase. Why do you believe price inflation would be worse with a wage increase than without a wage increase?
Because in some cases , you're nearly doubling labor costs, and you want to do it overnight. Over half the workforce would suddenly cost more to employ. You cannot do that without a sharp price increase.
Now is the best time to figure out the one time cost adjustment for the capital bottom line. Higher paid labor will still have a higher marginal propensity to consume.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,666
Reaction score
3,385
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
We need to force owners to:

Not raise prices

Not automate

Not to lay off workers

Not to cut hours

Not to go out of business

Then the new minimum wage law would work! !!!
Corporate downsizing for the bottom line works even with no increase in wages. Right wingers only seem to complain when the Poor may benefit.
How would they benefit if no jobs
Unemployment compensation can help mitigate that until the multiplier starts to have its effect and generates more jobs due to higher paid labor creating more demand.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,666
Reaction score
3,385
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Democrats don't like allowing businesses to keep more of the money they earn. You know that, and it would nullify some of the so-called benefit you keep touting of more taxes paid by workers. In essence, you're shifting the tax burden from business to labor. Is that what you intend? And you can't change UC the way you want to and not have it become welfare.
Not at all. It merely seems that way to right wingers who offer nothing but repeal instead of any better capital solutions at lower capital cost.
So why do you want to shift the tax burden from business onto the workers?
Sure, why not. Right wingers were complaining about the Poor not paying their share taxes in earlier threads.

Raise the minimum wage until the Poor pay their share of the tax burden!
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,176
Reaction score
6,571
Points
280
What is to the contrary?

In economics, the marginal propensity to consume (MPC) is a metric that quantifies induced consumption, the concept that the increase in personal consumer spending (consumption) occurs with an increase in disposable income (income after taxes and transfers). -- Marginal propensity to consume - Wikipedia
You keep ignoring the many that you will throw out of work and into dependence on welfare.
There is no law requiring capitalists to cut jobs when they could simply and easily pass on that cost to their consumers.
You clearly have no idea how hard it is for a single company to raise prices if the competition is not also doing it. If they raise prices while others do not, they lose business. Sane people know that.
I only clearly have some idea why you keep missing the point about a Statutory change to the minimum wage. It is why I have a difficult time believing right wingers are serious about the topics they allege to care about.

I have stated more than thrice (after thrice it is just a vice), that all of that single company's competition is going to be in the same boat regarding a Statutory minimum wage.
It sounds like you're admitting that prices would immediately go up, thus nullifying part of the benefit of higher wages. Sure, you get more in your paycheck, but then everything costs more at the same time.
Price inflation happens all the time even without a wage increase. Why do you believe price inflation would be worse with a wage increase than without a wage increase?
Because in some cases , you're nearly doubling labor costs, and you want to do it overnight. Over half the workforce would suddenly cost more to employ. You cannot do that without a sharp price increase.
Now is the best time to figure out the one time cost adjustment for the capital bottom line. Higher paid labor will still have a higher marginal propensity to consume.
"One time cost adjustment"? Oh, brother, you are living a serious fantasy life right there. The pot has destroyed your last working brain cells.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,176
Reaction score
6,571
Points
280
Democrats don't like allowing businesses to keep more of the money they earn. You know that, and it would nullify some of the so-called benefit you keep touting of more taxes paid by workers. In essence, you're shifting the tax burden from business to labor. Is that what you intend? And you can't change UC the way you want to and not have it become welfare.
Not at all. It merely seems that way to right wingers who offer nothing but repeal instead of any better capital solutions at lower capital cost.
So why do you want to shift the tax burden from business onto the workers?
Sure, why not. Right wingers were complaining about the Poor not paying their share taxes in earlier threads.

Raise the minimum wage until the Poor pay their share of the tax burden!
And there it is, you'll throw anyone under the bus for your fantasy.
 

bear513

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
64,556
Reaction score
12,317
Points
2,180
We need to force owners to:

Not raise prices

Not automate

Not to lay off workers

Not to cut hours

Not to go out of business

Then the new minimum wage law would work! !!!
Corporate downsizing for the bottom line works even with no increase in wages. Right wingers only seem to complain when the Poor may benefit.
How would they benefit if no jobs
Unemployment compensation can help mitigate that until the multiplier starts to have its effect and generates more jobs due to higher paid labor creating more demand.
So in your fantasy world how do old people compete for jobs?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
65,377
Reaction score
13,420
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Because those keeping their job will outnumber those who lose their job
Fewer than 50% will lose their job?
This is you trying to come up with a positive?
You are the one making up that "statistic".

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,


How many employers can afford to fire half of their minimum wage staff and remain competitive? And, those who remain will be making more money, creating more demand, and generating more tax revenue to help with the multiplier.
What was the net reduction in real family earnings?
 

jbander

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2016
Messages
4,466
Reaction score
873
Points
170
And the people who lose their jobs won't. The people who keep their jobs will have decreased purchasing power so it ain't gonna be the big economic lift you think it will be.
Why do you believe persons nearly doubling their wage will have decreased purchasing power? Statements like that are usually nothing but right wing propaganda yet you would have us believe you are not a right winger.
The people making 7.25 an hour now are going to be the ones that lose their jobs first so there won't be a huge number of people who actually see a doubling of their pay.

This is the CBO's prediction and if you had a single logical brain cell it would make sense to you.

And if you actually read what I have written I said it's the people who are making close to 15 an hour now that will see their purchasing power decrease.
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,

FYI it's less than 2% of all workers.
Amazing bullshit, if they open their mouths they are lying.
So the CBO did not predict the loss of 1.4 million jobs?
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,

Brainless quote "The people making 7.25 an hour now are going to be the ones that lose their jobs first so there won't be a huge number of people who actually see a doubling of their pay. SOMEONE WITH THE CAPACITY TO THINK" So the only job losses would be just the ones making 7.25, bullshit.

Brainless quote"
That's exactly my point. Prices will go up across the board." SOMEONE WITH THE CAPACITY TO THINK-Tell us since most of our industry's pay over 15 dollars an hour now ,. why in the hell would it be across the board , that just stupid. You got nothing that is worth even looking at. When you say anything it's a lie or a distortion, never just the facts, endless lies around a few facts.
Did the CBO not say that 1.4 million jobs would be lost>?

Did the CBO not say that 54 billion would be added to the deficicits?


The cumulative budget deficit over the 2021–2031 period would increase by $54 billion.

Higher prices for goods and services—stemming from the higher wages of workers paid at or near the minimum wage, such as those providing long-term health care—would contribute to increases in federal spending

Employment would be reduced by 1.4 million workers,
Doesn't mean shit when you leave out the real facts not just two that support your ugly view of increasing Min./ wage. , YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE TO TELL THE TRUTH ON EVERYTHING YOU SAY , YOUR BOZO IDEA THAT THE CBO SAYS A AND B AND LIE THROUGH YOUR TEETH ABOUT 10 OTHER ASPECTS OF THE ISSUE , MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE A IDIOT AND YOU ARE EASY WHEN IT COMES TO POINT OUT YOUR BULLSHIT BECAUSE YOUR COMMENTS ARE FULL OF Them, kiss OFF!
 

jbander

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2016
Messages
4,466
Reaction score
873
Points
170
Right wingers are scum , they believe if you are poor it is your fault automatically and the got this fantasy that all you have to do is work hard and you will get ahead , within the same voice that says CEO'S don't have to do anything but deserve million dollar wages and respect.
 

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,129
Reaction score
139
Points
85
On what page does it say it's "an improvement of our nation’s economic and social wellbeing"?
Whining ToddsterPatriot, I doubt if I ever deliberately misquoted a Congressional Budget Office’s published report. If you’ve fond such a post of mine, please post it for me to see.
Respectfully, Supposn
 

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,129
Reaction score
139
Points
85
On what page does it say it's "an improvement of our nation’s economic and social wellbeing"?
Whining ToddsterPatriot and Blues Man, I no less than you support our nations domestic and foreign commerce. But I’m among those opposed to favoring immediate commercial gains that disfavor USA wage earners and their lower income families.
e read page 3, table 1, " Effects of Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage on Employment, Income, and Poverty, 2025 "
Within https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf
and consider the “Raise the Wage” bill as a proposal net beneficial to USA’s economic and social wellbeing.

We consider U.S. Congressional Budget Office’s projections of increased incomes for USA’s aggregate lower wage-earning workers and lower income families as fully justifying the 1/10 of a percent reduction of for all our families. In aggregate, those income reductions only occur within the higher family incomes’ brackets.
Respectfully, Supposn
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
65,377
Reaction score
13,420
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
On what page does it say it's "an improvement of our nation’s economic and social wellbeing"?
Whining ToddsterPatriot, I doubt if I ever deliberately misquoted a Congressional Budget Office’s published report. If you’ve fond such a post of mine, please post it for me to see.
Respectfully, Supposn
I doubt if I ever deliberately misquoted a Congressional Budget Office’s published report.

How could you misquote it if they've never said it's "an improvement of our nation’s economic and social wellbeing"?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top