$15 minimum wage would destroy 1.4 Million jobs

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
65,384
Reaction score
13,422
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 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
read page 3, table 1,

1614694032276.png


Thanks. This shows the net loss, because it's not a net benefit.

In aggregate, those income reductions only occur within the higher family incomes’ brackets.

In aggregate, those employment reductions mostly occur within the lower family incomes’ brackets.

1614694285597.png

Page 9.....

Some employers therefore respond to a higher minimum wage by reducing their low-wage staff and shifting toward those substitutes. That reduces employment among low-wage workers but might increase it among higher-wage workers.

That doesn't sound helpful, does it?
 

jbander

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2016
Messages
4,466
Reaction score
873
Points
170
Big fricken deal. that is a easy trade off. hell the vast majority of this country supports all fracking banned. so anyway you look at it , you don't count, just one of the uglys!
 

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,129
Reaction score
139
Points
85
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. ...
How could you misquote it if they've never said it's "an improvement of our nation’s economic and social wellbeing"?
Whining ToddsterPatriot, you’re unable to retrieve the post you allege I posted? Respectfully, Supposn
 

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,129
Reaction score
139
Points
85
... read page 3, table 1,
,
View attachment 463307
... Thanks. This shows the net loss, because it's not a net benefit. ...
Whining ToddsterPatriot and Blues Man, ... We [, i.e. populists] 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
65,384
Reaction score
13,422
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
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. ...
How could you misquote it if they've never said it's "an improvement of our nation’s economic and social wellbeing"?
Whining ToddsterPatriot, you’re unable to retrieve the post you allege I posted? Respectfully, Supposn
You didn't say the minimum wage is "an improvement of our nation’s economic and social wellbeing"? That's funny.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
65,384
Reaction score
13,422
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
... read page 3, table 1,
,
View attachment 463307
... Thanks. This shows the net loss, because it's not a net benefit. ...
Whining ToddsterPatriot and Blues Man, ... We [, i.e. populists] 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
We [, i.e. populists] 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 that case, you should say....

"While it isn't a net benefit to the nation, the benefit for lower income families makes the reduction in GDP, employment, buying power and business investment worthwhile ".

Then I wouldn't mock your idiocy, silly twat.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,695
Reaction score
3,386
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!
And there it is, you'll throw anyone under the bus for your fantasy.
How is raising the minimum wage so they can better afford our first world economy, any form of "throwing anyone under the bus"? You are only Always Right, in right wing fantasy. Here, you only have a fallacy (of begging the question).
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,197
Reaction score
6,584
Points
280
"One time cost adjustment"? Oh, brother, you are living a serious fantasy life right there. The pot has destroyed your last working brain cells.
Only having fallacy (of argumentum ad hominem) is worse and You don't even smoke pot.
You wouldn't even get a one time cost adjustment that would cover the losses, certainly not with democrats on the scene to scream about transferring the tax burden from business owners to workers, and you would need more than a one time thing because doubling labor costs is not quickly or easily absorbed.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,695
Reaction score
3,386
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.
So in your fantasy world how do old people compete for jobs?
Just like everyone else and exactly like they used to do, if they don't want to opt-out of the labor market by obtaining social security.
 

bear513

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
64,556
Reaction score
12,317
Points
2,180
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.
So burger flippers our college grads now?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,695
Reaction score
3,386
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.
What was the net reduction in real family earnings?
The short-term projection, since real earnings are increased by forty-four billion, was around nine billion. Unemployment compensation could easily mitigate that issue as well.
 

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?
Just like everyone else and exactly like they used to do, if they don't want to opt-out of the labor market by obtaining social security.
You think you can live on $800 a month?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,695
Reaction score
3,386
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
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
read page 3, table 1,

View attachment 463307

Thanks. This shows the net loss, because it's not a net benefit.

In aggregate, those income reductions only occur within the higher family incomes’ brackets.

In aggregate, those employment reductions mostly occur within the lower family incomes’ brackets.

View attachment 463309
Page 9.....

Some employers therefore respond to a higher minimum wage by reducing their low-wage staff and shifting toward those substitutes. That reduces employment among low-wage workers but might increase it among higher-wage workers.

That doesn't sound helpful, does it?
Higher paid labor and automation tend to increase the productive output of our economy which is a net benefit. Optimizing unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed can easily solve your right wing problem; but, the Poor may benefit under Capitalism without having to work overly hard for it.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,695
Reaction score
3,386
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
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. ...
How could you misquote it if they've never said it's "an improvement of our nation’s economic and social wellbeing"?
Whining ToddsterPatriot, you’re unable to retrieve the post you allege I posted? Respectfully, Supposn
You didn't say the minimum wage is "an improvement of our nation’s economic and social wellbeing"? That's funny.
We should not be subsidizing the Richest with cheap labor paid for by tax dollars on everyone.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
65,384
Reaction score
13,422
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?
The short-term projection, since real earnings are increased by forty-four billion, was around nine billion. Unemployment compensation could easily mitigate that issue as well.
since real earnings are increased by forty-four billion,

real earnings are decreased by nine billion,
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
65,384
Reaction score
13,422
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 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
read page 3, table 1,

View attachment 463307

Thanks. This shows the net loss, because it's not a net benefit.

In aggregate, those income reductions only occur within the higher family incomes’ brackets.

In aggregate, those employment reductions mostly occur within the lower family incomes’ brackets.

View attachment 463309
Page 9.....

Some employers therefore respond to a higher minimum wage by reducing their low-wage staff and shifting toward those substitutes. That reduces employment among low-wage workers but might increase it among higher-wage workers.

That doesn't sound helpful, does it?
Higher paid labor and automation tend to increase the productive output of our economy which is a net benefit. Optimizing unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed can easily solve your right wing problem; but, the Poor may benefit under Capitalism without having to work overly hard for it.
Sorry, no bum payments for you.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,197
Reaction score
6,584
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.
How is raising the minimum wage so they can better afford our first world economy, any form of "throwing anyone under the bus"? You are only Always Right, in right wing fantasy. Here, you only have a fallacy (of begging the question).
You seem to think that giving the poor more money will make them not poor. What will happen is that $15/hr will become the new poor and you as well as the other suspects will be out there again complaining that the poor have to pay so much in taxes, and the wheel will take another turn.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,197
Reaction score
6,584
Points
280
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
read page 3, table 1,

View attachment 463307

Thanks. This shows the net loss, because it's not a net benefit.

In aggregate, those income reductions only occur within the higher family incomes’ brackets.

In aggregate, those employment reductions mostly occur within the lower family incomes’ brackets.

View attachment 463309
Page 9.....

Some employers therefore respond to a higher minimum wage by reducing their low-wage staff and shifting toward those substitutes. That reduces employment among low-wage workers but might increase it among higher-wage workers.

That doesn't sound helpful, does it?
Higher paid labor and automation tend to increase the productive output of our economy which is a net benefit. Optimizing unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed can easily solve your right wing problem; but, the Poor may benefit under Capitalism without having to work overly hard for it.
Quit hiding behind rhetoric. "Optimizing unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed" means a massive new welfare program. We've been over this, many times.
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
38,303
Reaction score
5,636
Points
1,130
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
read page 3, table 1,

View attachment 463307

Thanks. This shows the net loss, because it's not a net benefit.

In aggregate, those income reductions only occur within the higher family incomes’ brackets.

In aggregate, those employment reductions mostly occur within the lower family incomes’ brackets.

View attachment 463309
Page 9.....

Some employers therefore respond to a higher minimum wage by reducing their low-wage staff and shifting toward those substitutes. That reduces employment among low-wage workers but might increase it among higher-wage workers.

That doesn't sound helpful, does it?
Higher paid labor and automation tend to increase the productive output of our economy which is a net benefit. Optimizing unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed can easily solve your right wing problem; but, the Poor may benefit under Capitalism without having to work overly hard for it.
Quit hiding behind rhetoric. "Optimizing unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed" means a massive new welfare program.
It doesn't even mean that much. Most of what daniel says doesn't mean anything at all. It's just bad poetry.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top