$15 minimum wage would destroy 1.4 Million jobs

[Blues Man]

There is no multiplier on government welfare there never was

There is no multiplier on MW increases in salary.

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not confused at all.

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

That is true, especially when those earning the new MW will be treated like those earning the current MW, that is will pay little to no net income taxes. The end result is more people than ever before either paying no taxes at all or getting a net payout.

One of the things we should do is get rid of refundable tax credits like the EITC

Increase the minimum wage until labor no longer qualifies for it; that is a "truer minimum wage".

Better yet just get rid of it.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no multiplier on government welfare there never was

There is no multiplier on MW increases in salary.

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not confused at all.

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

That is true, especially when those earning the new MW will be treated like those earning the current MW, that is will pay little to no net income taxes. The end result is more people than ever before either paying no taxes at all or getting a net payout.

They will qualify for less public assistance while creating more demand and generating more tax revenue.

I know you believe that in spite of everything to the contrary. You've made that clear by doggedly, stubbornly, dogmatically repeating it every chance you get.

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

 

[danielpalos]

There is no multiplier on government welfare there never was

There is no multiplier on MW increases in salary.

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not confused at all.

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

That is true, especially when those earning the new MW will be treated like those earning the current MW, that is will pay little to no net income taxes. The end result is more people than ever before either paying no taxes at all or getting a net payout.

One of the things we should do is get rid of refundable tax credits like the EITC

Increase the minimum wage until labor no longer qualifies for it; that is a "truer minimum wage".

And at the same time you're going to make more and more qualify for the EITC and the like by putting them out of work. You just never learn.

Only in the short term. And, businesses downsize for the bottom line without any wage increases. Right wingers don't complain about job losses for that. More comprehensive unemployment compensation can help mitigate the effects of unemployment.

In the long term, higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more tax revenue.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Blues Man, jobs’ wage rates are not of lesser importance than the wages amount or availability of jobs.
Increased costs for public assistance and unemployment insurance are economically preferable to the detrimental effects due to reductions of federal minimum wage rate’s purchasing power.
Respectfully, Supposn

That doesn't mean that the people making the least will not see the most job losses

Businesses downsize and cut jobs merely for the bottom line. Why should anyone believe right wingers actually care about lost jobs due to a wage increase?

That doesn't change the reality that the worst hit with job losses will be the ones on the bottom rung of the ladder.

More comprehensive unemployment compensation can help mitigate that effect on a more permanent basis.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Blues Man, jobs’ wage rates are not of lesser importance than the wages amount or availability of jobs.
Increased costs for public assistance and unemployment insurance are economically preferable to the detrimental effects due to reductions of federal minimum wage rate’s purchasing power.
Respectfully, Supposn

That doesn't mean that the people making the least will not see the most job losses

Businesses downsize and cut jobs merely for the bottom line. Why should anyone believe right wingers actually care about lost jobs due to a wage increase?

When you stop looking at the world in 2 dimensions let me know until then I have no time to waste conversing with people with a world view that consists of 2 pigeonholes.

I could say the same about you. You only seem to complain about job losses for the Poor, when there is a wage increase in it for them.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no multiplier on government welfare there never was

There is no multiplier on MW increases in salary.

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not confused at all.

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

That is true, especially when those earning the new MW will be treated like those earning the current MW, that is will pay little to no net income taxes. The end result is more people than ever before either paying no taxes at all or getting a net payout.

They will qualify for less public assistance while creating more demand and generating more tax revenue.

not if they lose their jobs

Job losses happen merely for the bottom line. However, in this case, those who keep their jobs will be spending more and creating more demand and generating more tax revenue.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no multiplier on government welfare there never was

There is no multiplier on MW increases in salary.

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not confused at all.

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

That is true, especially when those earning the new MW will be treated like those earning the current MW, that is will pay little to no net income taxes. The end result is more people than ever before either paying no taxes at all or getting a net payout.

One of the things we should do is get rid of refundable tax credits like the EITC

Increase the minimum wage until labor no longer qualifies for it; that is a "truer minimum wage".

Better yet just get rid of it.

Even better would be to get rid of your right wing, alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

 

[Blues Man]

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

Blues Man, jobs’ wage rates are not of lesser importance than the wages amount or availability of jobs.
Increased costs for public assistance and unemployment insurance are economically preferable to the detrimental effects due to reductions of federal minimum wage rate’s purchasing power.
Respectfully, Supposn

That doesn't mean that the people making the least will not see the most job losses

Businesses downsize and cut jobs merely for the bottom line. Why should anyone believe right wingers actually care about lost jobs due to a wage increase?

When you stop looking at the world in 2 dimensions let me know until then I have no time to waste conversing with people with a world view that consists of 2 pigeonholes.

I could say the same about you. You only seem to complain about job losses for the Poor, when there is a wage increase in it for them.

I don't need to put everything into 2 little boxes like you do.

Everyone you disagree with is a "right winger" and everyone you agree with is a "left winger"

You can't seem to realize that there are other options.

And I'm nt complaining about job losses at all. I am merely telling you what will happen if the MW is more than doubled but you refuse to believe it.......................................................

 

[Blues Man]

There is no multiplier on government welfare there never was

There is no multiplier on MW increases in salary.

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not confused at all.

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

That is true, especially when those earning the new MW will be treated like those earning the current MW, that is will pay little to no net income taxes. The end result is more people than ever before either paying no taxes at all or getting a net payout.

One of the things we should do is get rid of refundable tax credits like the EITC

Increase the minimum wage until labor no longer qualifies for it; that is a "truer minimum wage".

Better yet just get rid of it.

Even better would be to get rid of your right wing, alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

Here we go again Mr Pigeonhole.

I have already told you I think all drugs should be legal. I have already told you that we should never have invaded the Middle East and I have already told you that I think we lock up far too many people.

But you can't seem to remember any of that because all you see is that I disagree with you on the minimum wage and therefore because of your limited intellectual capacity you have to lump me in to the "Right wing" pigeonhole.

 

[Blues Man]

There is no multiplier on government welfare there never was

There is no multiplier on MW increases in salary.

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not confused at all.

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

That is true, especially when those earning the new MW will be treated like those earning the current MW, that is will pay little to no net income taxes. The end result is more people than ever before either paying no taxes at all or getting a net payout.

They will qualify for less public assistance while creating more demand and generating more tax revenue.

not if they lose their jobs

Job losses happen merely for the bottom line. However, in this case, those who keep their jobs will be spending more and creating more demand and generating more tax revenue.

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.

 

[hadit]

There is no multiplier on government welfare there never was

There is no multiplier on MW increases in salary.

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not confused at all.

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

That is true, especially when those earning the new MW will be treated like those earning the current MW, that is will pay little to no net income taxes. The end result is more people than ever before either paying no taxes at all or getting a net payout.

They will qualify for less public assistance while creating more demand and generating more tax revenue.

I know you believe that in spite of everything to the contrary. You've made that clear by doggedly, stubbornly, dogmatically repeating it every chance you get.

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.

 

[hadit]

There is no multiplier on government welfare there never was

There is no multiplier on MW increases in salary.

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not confused at all.

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

That is true, especially when those earning the new MW will be treated like those earning the current MW, that is will pay little to no net income taxes. The end result is more people than ever before either paying no taxes at all or getting a net payout.

One of the things we should do is get rid of refundable tax credits like the EITC

Increase the minimum wage until labor no longer qualifies for it; that is a "truer minimum wage".

And at the same time you're going to make more and more qualify for the EITC and the like by putting them out of work. You just never learn.

Only in the short term. And, businesses downsize for the bottom line without any wage increases. Right wingers don't complain about job losses for that. More comprehensive unemployment compensation can help mitigate the effects of unemployment.

In the long term, higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more tax revenue.

"In the long term". Nice, because that's what I've been saying. The market can handle MW increases if it is allowed to adjust to them over time. Double it overnight and it's a recipe for disaster. Anyway, there is nothing preventing states and cities from enacting their own MW. Why aren't you complaining about your local government?

 

[Supposn]

Blues Man, jobs’ wage rates are not of lesser importance than the wages amount or availability of jobs.
Increased costs for public assistance and unemployment insurance are economically preferable to the detrimental effects due to reductions of federal minimum wage rate’s purchasing power. ...

That doesn't mean that the people making the least will not see the most job losses

Blues Man, possibly you may be correct.
But it does mean in aggregate, lower wage workers and families derive the greatest net financial benefits from the federal minimum wage rate. That remains true even when including unemployed workers and unemployed members of lower wage-earning families.

Paradoxically, it’s the employed and the unemployed lower wage-earning workers, and all of their dependents residing in states with lesser regard for them, (i.e. states that do not enforce higher than the federal minimum rate within their jurisdictions), that are proportional their incomes, the greater beneficiaries due the federal minimum wage rate.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[danielpalos]

I don't need to put everything into 2 little boxes like you do.

Everyone you disagree with is a "right winger" and everyone you agree with is a "left winger"

You can't seem to realize that there are other options.

And I'm nt complaining about job losses at all. I am merely telling you what will happen if the MW is more than doubled but you refuse to believe it.......................................................

We know some business owners would rather cut jobs than simply pass on that price inflation to their customers. It is a short term problem since higher paid labor will create more in demand and generate more tax revenue in the long run.

 

[danielpalos]

Here we go again Mr Pigeonhole.

I have already told you I think all drugs should be legal. I have already told you that we should never have invaded the Middle East and I have already told you that I think we lock up far too many people.

But you can't seem to remember any of that because all you see is that I disagree with you on the minimum wage and therefore because of your limited intellectual capacity you have to lump me in to the "Right wing" pigeonhole.

There is no law requiring business owners to cut jobs. They could simply pass that price inflation on to their customers like they do for any other cost.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

 

[danielpalos]

"In the long term". Nice, because that's what I've been saying. The market can handle MW increases if it is allowed to adjust to them over time. Double it overnight and it's a recipe for disaster. Anyway, there is nothing preventing states and cities from enacting their own MW. Why aren't you complaining about your local government?

What disaster are you referring to? The minimum wage increase could be coupled with tax considerations for businesses to help overcome the price shock. Unemployment compensation could be more comprehensive. And, higher paid labor will create more in demand and generate more tax revenue. Policies that resort to automatic stabilization should be the key to more economically efficient public policies.

 

[hadit]

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.

 

[hadit]

"In the long term". Nice, because that's what I've been saying. The market can handle MW increases if it is allowed to adjust to them over time. Double it overnight and it's a recipe for disaster. Anyway, there is nothing preventing states and cities from enacting their own MW. Why aren't you complaining about your local government?

What disaster are you referring to? The minimum wage increase could be coupled with tax considerations for businesses to help overcome the price shock. Unemployment compensation could be more comprehensive. And, higher paid labor will create more in demand and generate more tax revenue. Policies that resort to automatic stabilization should be the key to more economically efficient public policies.

Yeah, yeah, there's that old schtick again, claiming they would cut taxes so business could pay higher wages, even though you know democrats won't let that happen. And no, UC cannot become welfare and still work the way it does. The rest of what you said is nonsense slogans.