$15 minimum wage would destroy 1.4 Million jobs

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.
It doesn't even mean that much. Most of what daniel says doesn't mean anything at all. It's just bad poetry.
In this case, he literally thinks you can expand UC to cover people who not only didn't hold a job but never intend to work at all, and it will function exactly like it does now. But it is true that most of what he says is a bunch of meaningless blargle.
 

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,129
Reaction score
139
Points
85
You didn't say the minimum wage is "an improvement of our nation’s economic and social wellbeing"? That's funny.
Whining ToddsterPatriot, I have and continue to state every increase of our federal minimum wage rate has and I expect they will continue to better serve our nation’s economic and social wellbeing.

But you’re evading the point of your accusation. I doubt¸(as you allege I did) deliberately or even inadvertently misquoted a Congressional Budget Office report.
Respectfully, Supposn
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
65,380
Reaction score
13,422
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
You didn't say the minimum wage is "an improvement of our nation’s economic and social wellbeing"? That's funny.
Whining ToddsterPatriot, I have and continue to state every increase of our federal minimum wage rate has and I expect they will continue to better serve our nation’s economic and social wellbeing.

But you’re evading the point of your accusation. I doubt¸(as you allege I did) deliberately or even inadvertently misquoted a Congressional Budget Office report.
Respectfully, Supposn
I have and continue to state every increase of our federal minimum wage rate has and I expect they will continue to better serve our nation’s economic and social wellbeing.

And you've yet to show where the CBO says that.

So post the link already.
 

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,129
Reaction score
139
Points
85
Supposn posted: I have and continue to state every increase of our federal minimum wage rate has and I expect they will continue to better serve our nation’s economic and social wellbeing.

And you've yet to show where the CBO says that.
So post the link already.
Whining ToddsterPatriot, if you found a post within which I falsely attributed a statement to a Congressional Budget Office’s report, post it for all of us to see. I doubt if I did so inadvertently, and I wouldn’t do so deliberately.

I suppose you’re too ashamed to recant your false accusation. You make it difficult for anyone to respect you.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
65,380
Reaction score
13,422
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Supposn posted: I have and continue to state every increase of our federal minimum wage rate has and I expect they will continue to better serve our nation’s economic and social wellbeing.

And you've yet to show where the CBO says that.
So post the link already.
Whining ToddsterPatriot, if you found a post within which I falsely attributed a statement to a Congressional Budget Office’s report, post it for all of us to see. I doubt if I did so inadvertently, and I wouldn’t do so deliberately.

I suppose you’re too ashamed to recant your false accusation. You make it difficult for anyone to respect you.
if you found a post within which I falsely attributed a statement to a Congressional Budget Office’s report, post it for all of us to see.

Congressional Budget Office’s, (CBO‘s) published projections for the House’s proposed “Raise the Rate” bill describe an act that would be an improvement of our nation’s economic and social wellbeing.

(4) $15 minimum wage would destroy 1.4 Million jobs | Page 41 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Where did the CBO say the “Raise the Rate” bill is "an act that would be an improvement of our nation’s economic and social wellbeing"?

Give a specific link where they said that.
 

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,129
Reaction score
139
Points
85
Where did the CBO say the “Raise the Rate” bill is "an act that would be an improvement of our nation’s economic and social wellbeing"?
Give a specific link where they said that.
Whining ToddsterPatriot, you apparently don’t understand the English language.
Your request for a link should be addressed to someone that attributes that statement to the Congressional Budget Office.
As I explained within many posted responses, I’m not that person.
Respectfully, Supposn
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
65,380
Reaction score
13,422
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Where did the CBO say the “Raise the Rate” bill is "an act that would be an improvement of our nation’s economic and social wellbeing"?
Give a specific link where they said that.
Whining ToddsterPatriot, you apparently don’t understand the English language.
Your request for a link should be addressed to someone that attributes that statement to the Congressional Budget Office.
As I explained within many posted responses, I’m not that person.
Respectfully, Supposn
So you lied, the CBO never said the act that would be an improvement of our nation’s economic and social wellbeing.
 

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,129
Reaction score
139
Points
85
So you lied, the CBO never said the act that would be an improvement of our nation’s economic and social wellbeing.
Whining ToddsterPatriot, I did not attribute my opinions to the Congressional Budget Office’s published reports. It’s your ignorant and illogical mind that leads you to believe otherwise.
I hope the best for you, Supposn
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
65,380
Reaction score
13,422
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
So you lied, the CBO never said the act that would be an improvement of our nation’s economic and social wellbeing.
Whining ToddsterPatriot, I did not attribute my opinions to the Congressional Budget Office’s published reports. It’s your ignorant and illogical mind that leads you to believe otherwise.
I hope the best for you, Supposn
Oh, so you made the stupid claim, with no support from the CBO.

That makes you look......stupid is the word.
 

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,129
Reaction score
139
Points
85
Oh, so you made the stupid claim, with no support from the CBO. That makes you look......stupid is the word.
Whining ToddsterPatriot, I stated my opinion. The statistics and analysis presented by Congressional Budget Office’s, (i.e. CBO’s) published report certainly contributed to my conclusions. If you were similarly influenced by CBO’s reports, your opinions would be much more amiable to the rate’s net benefit to our nation’s economic and social wellbeing.
Respectfully, Supposn
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
65,380
Reaction score
13,422
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Oh, so you made the stupid claim, with no support from the CBO. That makes you look......stupid is the word.
Whining ToddsterPatriot, I stated my opinion. The statistics and analysis presented by Congressional Budget Office’s, (i.e. CBO’s) published report certainly contributed to my conclusions. If you were similarly influenced by CBO’s reports, your opinions would be much more amiable to the rate’s net benefit to our nation’s economic and social wellbeing.
Respectfully, Supposn
I stated my opinion.

Exactly.

And the CBO report does not support your opinion.
 

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.
since real earnings are increased by forty-four billion,

real earnings are decreased by nine billion,
What you claim can only happen in the short term while markets are arbitraging to a new equilibrium where higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue.

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

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.
Sorry, no bum payments for you.
Right wingers only have a problem when the Poor may benefit not the Rich?
 

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).
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.
It is the difference between simply being Poor and official poverty where the public sector subsidizes the Rich with cheap labor.
 

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.
Quit hiding behind rhetoric. "Optimizing unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed" means a massive new welfare program. We've been over this, many times.
Not at all. That is just you right wingers being two dimensional. Unemployment compensation can solve for simple poverty by actually solving for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. Means tested welfare only treats the symptoms, it doesn't cure anything.
 

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.
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.
In this case, he literally thinks you can expand UC to cover people who not only didn't hold a job but never intend to work at all, and it will function exactly like it does now. But it is true that most of what he says is a bunch of meaningless blargle.
Don't really care about the law, right wingers? Admit it, y'all only prefer to "hate on the Poor and less fortunate".
 

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.
It doesn't even mean that much. Most of what daniel says doesn't mean anything at all. It's just bad poetry.
In this case, he literally thinks you can expand UC to cover people who not only didn't hold a job but never intend to work at all, and it will function exactly like it does now. But it is true that most of what he says is a bunch of meaningless blargle.
Don't really care about the law, right wingers? Admit it, y'all only prefer to "hate on the Poor and less fortunate".
We care about the law as it is written. You do not. You want to pretend the law says something it doesn't, therefore you do not care about the law.
 

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.
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.
In this case, he literally thinks you can expand UC to cover people who not only didn't hold a job but never intend to work at all, and it will function exactly like it does now. But it is true that most of what he says is a bunch of meaningless blargle.
Don't really care about the law, right wingers? Admit it, y'all only prefer to "hate on the Poor and less fortunate".
We care about the law as it is written. You do not. You want to pretend the law says something it doesn't, therefore you do not care about the law.
Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful. You must have voted for this guy:

 

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.
It doesn't even mean that much. Most of what daniel says doesn't mean anything at all. It's just bad poetry.
In this case, he literally thinks you can expand UC to cover people who not only didn't hold a job but never intend to work at all, and it will function exactly like it does now. But it is true that most of what he says is a bunch of meaningless blargle.
Don't really care about the law, right wingers? Admit it, y'all only prefer to "hate on the Poor and less fortunate".
We care about the law as it is written. You do not. You want to pretend the law says something it doesn't, therefore you do not care about the law.
Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful. You must have voted for this guy:

Except multiple people have shown you multiple times where your ideas about the law are fantasies, and you ignore it. You're the ONLY one that believes what you do. NO legal scholar agrees with you.
 

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.
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.
In this case, he literally thinks you can expand UC to cover people who not only didn't hold a job but never intend to work at all, and it will function exactly like it does now. But it is true that most of what he says is a bunch of meaningless blargle.
Don't really care about the law, right wingers? Admit it, y'all only prefer to "hate on the Poor and less fortunate".
We care about the law as it is written. You do not. You want to pretend the law says something it doesn't, therefore you do not care about the law.
Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful. You must have voted for this guy:

Except multiple people have shown you multiple times where your ideas about the law are fantasies, and you ignore it. You're the ONLY one that believes what you do. NO legal scholar agrees with you.
Only right wingers claim what you do. How typical.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top