$15 minimum wage would destroy 1.4 Million jobs

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,524
Reaction score
3,356
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
And this is according to the Far Left CBO. ...
Polishprince, I suppose you may be among those paranoids believing USA’s majority of voters and majority of Electoral College members they elected, did not legally (and in proper, conventional manner) chose not to re-elect Donald Trump.
That would explain your paranoic determining the U.S. Congressional Budget Office to be a “far left” part of our federal government’s legislative branch.

The CBO’s published projections for the U.S. House’s passed “Raise the Wage” bill describes a proposal that’s net beneficial to our nation’s economic and social wellbeing.
Respectfully, Supposn
The CBO’s published projections for the U.S. House’s passed “Raise the Wage” bill describes a proposal that’s net beneficial to our nation’s economic and social wellbeing.

View attachment 464457
Where does the CBO say that higher rates of joblessness, reduced business income, higher prices, reduced GDP, reduced capital stock and reduced total real family income is "net beneficial to our nation’s economic and social wellbeing"?

Anywhere?
Point one percent?

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,
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
65,310
Reaction score
13,381
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
And this is according to the Far Left CBO. ...
Polishprince, I suppose you may be among those paranoids believing USA’s majority of voters and majority of Electoral College members they elected, did not legally (and in proper, conventional manner) chose not to re-elect Donald Trump.
That would explain your paranoic determining the U.S. Congressional Budget Office to be a “far left” part of our federal government’s legislative branch.

The CBO’s published projections for the U.S. House’s passed “Raise the Wage” bill describes a proposal that’s net beneficial to our nation’s economic and social wellbeing.
Respectfully, Supposn
The CBO’s published projections for the U.S. House’s passed “Raise the Wage” bill describes a proposal that’s net beneficial to our nation’s economic and social wellbeing.

View attachment 464457
Where does the CBO say that higher rates of joblessness, reduced business income, higher prices, reduced GDP, reduced capital stock and reduced total real family income is "net beneficial to our nation’s economic and social wellbeing"?

Anywhere?
Point one percent?

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,
Point one percent?

You can read!!! Congrats.

Yes, a $9 billion real reduction.
Reduction, that's the opposite of an increase.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,121
Reaction score
6,490
Points
280
Proof, right wingers are just plain political hypocrites about less fortunate "illegals" to the law.
Proof that you're not going to get a bum payment, just for sitting on your ass.
Your unsubstantiated opinion and appeal to emotions means nothing.
Unsubstantiated?

When was the last bum payment you received?
Black codes actually happened. Your understanding is simply full of fallacy.
And where are they now?
How long did that take? They were Wrong not Right (wing) to begin with.
And they went away because enough people agreed they were unconstitutional and wrong. That's not going to happen with UC. You're simply wrong and making the whole thing up in your head. No one agrees with you.
Only right wingers disagree with me. Y'all prefer to bear false witness and practice the abomination of hypocrisy upon the Poor; that is all.
No one agrees with you. If you think they do, name them.
Right wingers disagreeing with me while having no valid arguments for rebuttal is all the proof I need.
IOW, you can't name any because they don't exist.
I don't need to appeal to any majority, unlike fantastical and literally incredible, right wingers.
But you do need to have a legal opinion that backs you up, since you're the only one who ever says this, and you don't have one.

See, here's where you fail, big time. First you try to claim that only some people disagree with you. That means that there are a lot who agree with you. Then, when you can't produce any, you claim you don't care about being in a majority. You don't have to be in the majority, you just have to present a sound legal opinion that supports your ridiculous claim, and you can't do it.
I have a First Amendment and State equivalents. I only need to not appeal to ignorance of the law.
So do you have anyone who agrees with you or not? It sounds an awful lot like you want to be the sole arbiter of what a law means, no matter what it says.
Not at all. It is that co-equal branch known as the judiciary that has the judicial power of the State or the United States.
Right, and the judiciary has NEVER found UC law to unconstitutionally exclude those who never held a job and never intend to, or who just walk off a job because they don't want to work any more. Apparently, you hope that someday if you just wish hard enough, it will because your brilliant legal mind has found something no one else in the world knows exists.

See, one the one hand you champion the judiciary as the arbiter of what the law says and means, but OTOH, you insist you know better than the entire judiciary because they haven't found for your pet fantasy.
You are not the judicature. It really is that simple.
Yet my argument is for reality as it is, and the judiciary agrees with me. Yours is for what you wish it would be, not what it is. So, why is it again that you think your legal expertise is so much greater than the entire judiciary's?
The judiciary doesn't disagree with me. It has to go before a judge first.
Then no lawyer has ever attempted to take it to court, no company has ever tried to get it overturned. That should tell you that you're chasing imaginary things. Give it up, you're wrong. Better yet, since you're so doggedly convinced, get a lawyer and take it to court yourself. Surely you have right on your side, correct?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,524
Reaction score
3,356
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
And this is according to the Far Left CBO. ...
Polishprince, I suppose you may be among those paranoids believing USA’s majority of voters and majority of Electoral College members they elected, did not legally (and in proper, conventional manner) chose not to re-elect Donald Trump.
That would explain your paranoic determining the U.S. Congressional Budget Office to be a “far left” part of our federal government’s legislative branch.

The CBO’s published projections for the U.S. House’s passed “Raise the Wage” bill describes a proposal that’s net beneficial to our nation’s economic and social wellbeing.
Respectfully, Supposn
The CBO’s published projections for the U.S. House’s passed “Raise the Wage” bill describes a proposal that’s net beneficial to our nation’s economic and social wellbeing.

View attachment 464457
Where does the CBO say that higher rates of joblessness, reduced business income, higher prices, reduced GDP, reduced capital stock and reduced total real family income is "net beneficial to our nation’s economic and social wellbeing"?

Anywhere?
Point one percent?

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,
Point one percent?

You can read!!! Congrats.

Yes, a $9 billion real reduction.
Reduction, that's the opposite of an increase.
Not at all. It can't be a long run equilibrium since higher paid labor creates more demand and generates more 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,


Looks like your nine billion is, a covered call.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,524
Reaction score
3,356
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Then no lawyer has ever attempted to take it to court, no company has ever tried to get it overturned. That should tell you that you're chasing imaginary things. Give it up, you're wrong. Better yet, since you're so doggedly convinced, get a lawyer and take it to court yourself. Surely you have right on your side, correct?
Not true at all under our form of Capitalism where rich guys can simply and merely afford enough justice to file scores of frivolous suits only to them dismissed for having nothing but "legal fallacy".
 

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,129
Reaction score
139
Points
85
... Where does the CBO say that higher rates of joblessness, reduced business income, higher prices, reduced GDP, reduced capital stock and reduced total real family income is "net beneficial to our nation’s economic and social wellbeing"?

Anywhere?
Whining Toddsterpatiot, you allege I falsely attributed my words to Congressional Budget Office’s publications. Your shame prevents you from recanting your lie and impels you to ignore 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

Considering CBO’s table 1, entitled “Effects of Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage on Employment, Income, and Poverty, 2025” in its entirety, reasonably logical people would consider the “Raise the Wage” bill as a proposal net beneficial to USA’s economic and social wellbeing.

I suppose that’s why most people and most voters in the USA are in favor of increasing and retaining the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage rate.
Respectfully. Supposn
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
65,310
Reaction score
13,381
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
... Where does the CBO say that higher rates of joblessness, reduced business income, higher prices, reduced GDP, reduced capital stock and reduced total real family income is "net beneficial to our nation’s economic and social wellbeing"?

Anywhere?
Whining Toddsterpatiot, you allege I falsely attributed my words to Congressional Budget Office’s publications. Your shame prevents you from recanting your lie and impels you to ignore 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

Considering CBO’s table 1, entitled “Effects of Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage on Employment, Income, and Poverty, 2025” in its entirety, reasonably logical people would consider the “Raise the Wage” bill as a proposal net beneficial to USA’s economic and social wellbeing.

I suppose that’s why most people and most voters in the USA are in favor of increasing and retaining the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage rate.
Respectfully. Supposn
you allege I falsely attributed my words to Congressional Budget Office’s publications.

You falsely claim that the CBO agrees it is "net beneficial".

reasonably logical people would consider the “Raise the Wage” bill as a proposal net beneficial to USA’s economic and social wellbeing.

Reasonably logical people would understand that higher rates of joblessness, reduced business income, higher prices, reduced GDP, reduced capital stock and reduced total real family income is not net beneficial.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
28,121
Reaction score
6,490
Points
280
Then no lawyer has ever attempted to take it to court, no company has ever tried to get it overturned. That should tell you that you're chasing imaginary things. Give it up, you're wrong. Better yet, since you're so doggedly convinced, get a lawyer and take it to court yourself. Surely you have right on your side, correct?
Not true at all under our form of Capitalism where rich guys can simply and merely afford enough justice to file scores of frivolous suits only to them dismissed for having nothing but "legal fallacy".
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with you believing so strongly that the law is not being applied equally. If you really believed it wasn't and that you were right, you should be able to walk into court and come out with a favorable ruling with no problem. Why don't you? You don't because you know that you're making it all up in your head and you WISH it were that way, but it's just not that way.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,524
Reaction score
3,356
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Then no lawyer has ever attempted to take it to court, no company has ever tried to get it overturned. That should tell you that you're chasing imaginary things. Give it up, you're wrong. Better yet, since you're so doggedly convinced, get a lawyer and take it to court yourself. Surely you have right on your side, correct?
Not true at all under our form of Capitalism where rich guys can simply and merely afford enough justice to file scores of frivolous suits only to them dismissed for having nothing but "legal fallacy".
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with you believing so strongly that the law is not being applied equally. If you really believed it wasn't and that you were right, you should be able to walk into court and come out with a favorable ruling with no problem. Why don't you? You don't because you know that you're making it all up in your head and you WISH it were that way, but it's just not that way.
Because I am not rich or I would have simply hired an attorney to initiate a class action. Capitalism can be wonderful when one has enough capital.

I expect to win any ruling regarding this concept. I have already won all of the arguments on political forums.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,524
Reaction score
3,356
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
I expect to win any ruling regarding this concept.
Because you're a useless stoner.
Not at all. Merely because you only have fallacy not any valid arguments.

Besides, only right wingers believe that . Why do you believe someone who has recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed would not do anything other than be a "useless", positive multiplier engendering stoner? I think anyone would want to try to do something since they would have an income to do it with. You don't have any convincing arguments as to why someone on unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed would not want to go to school or learn a skill that would be more capitally rewarding than simply be poor but not in poverty on unemployment.
 

jbander

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2016
Messages
4,457
Reaction score
872
Points
170
The minimum wage is going to be indexed to inflation.
Yeah so everyone eventually makes minimum wage, no thanks
Just another reason why nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.
We thought minimum wage was $20 bucks an hour with inflation? That's 70% of the work force
Wages need to outpace inflation.
Raising wages causes INFLATION.
The Idiot right says increase wages cause inflation but more economist say that's not true over the ones that say it is true, but all economists say increase inflation increases jobs so , so the hate party really can't have their bullshit that it will cause job loss and increase inflation.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,524
Reaction score
3,356
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
While the arguments for wage-push inflation are appealing, the empirical evidence is not so solid. In fact, looking back at the history of minimum wage increases has only a very weak association with inflationary pressures on prices in an economy.--https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/052815/does-raising-minimum-wage-increase-inflation.asp
 

bear513

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
64,556
Reaction score
12,316
Points
2,180
While the arguments for wage-push inflation are appealing, the empirical evidence is not so solid. In fact, looking back at the history of minimum wage increases has only a very weak association with inflationary pressures on prices in an economy.--https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/052815/does-raising-minimum-wage-increase-inflation.asp
Bwahaha, minimum wage used to be 25 cents an hour.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,524
Reaction score
3,356
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
While the arguments for wage-push inflation are appealing, the empirical evidence is not so solid. In fact, looking back at the history of minimum wage increases has only a very weak association with inflationary pressures on prices in an economy.--https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/052815/does-raising-minimum-wage-increase-inflation.asp
Bwahaha, minimum wage used to be 25 cents an hour.
So what. The minimum wage was not adjusted for around a decade and inflation still happened.
 

bear513

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
64,556
Reaction score
12,316
Points
2,180
While the arguments for wage-push inflation are appealing, the empirical evidence is not so solid. In fact, looking back at the history of minimum wage increases has only a very weak association with inflationary pressures on prices in an economy.--https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/052815/does-raising-minimum-wage-increase-inflation.asp
Bwahaha, minimum wage used to be 25 cents an hour.
So what. The minimum wage was not adjusted for around a decade and inflation still happened.
So in your mind inflation wouldn't of happened if we raised minimum wage?
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top