$15 minimum wage would destroy 1.4 Million jobs

[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.

The people making 7.25 an hour now are going to be the ones that lose their jobs first so there won't be a huge number of people who actually see a doubling of their pay.

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

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

That is just you ignoring the CBO report you like to cite.

Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion,

Real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion,

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

And, more comprehensive unemployment compensation can mitigate the loss of real earnings of those disemployed.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

 

[danielpalos]

... The people making 7.25 an hour now are going to be the ones that lose their jobs first so there won't be a huge number of people who actually see a doubling of their pay.
This is the CBO's prediction and if you had a single logical brain cell it would make sense to you. ...

Blues Man, you're incorrect.
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.
CBO’s projections for lower wage-rate workers and for their lower wage-rate families of lower incomes, are, (proportional to their total incomes) substantially much greater.
Respectfully, Supposn

The CBO predicted 1.4 million jobs lost.

Of those jobs the most will be people who are at the low end of the wage scale.

Those who keep their jobs will outnumber those who lose their jobs; and, with the increased pay will create more demand and generate more tax revenue which contributes to the multiplier.

 

[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.

Hell a 15 dollar minimum wage is just the beginning, all the new wealth of this country since Reagan s trickle down lie has gone to the golden few at the top, for 40 years . Now we write tax law and benefits to do the complete opposite for the next 40 years and all the new wealth goes to everyone other then the golden few, Seems fair to me. To be fair taxes will go up massively for the Wealthy.

Why should government decide where the wealth goes? That's what the market is for.

If that was a case they wouldn't have sold the trickle down lie to the right wing brainless

That doesn't answer the question.

Congress has the (social) power to fix Standards for the Union.

 

[jbander]

The CBO predicted 1.4 million jobs lost. Of those jobs the most will be people who are at the low end of the wage scale.

Blues Man, 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.

CBO’s projections for aggregate lower wage-rate workers and for their families of lower incomes, are, (proportional to their total incomes) substantially much greater. Those CBO’s projections include worker and members of lower income families that are employed or unemployed .

CBO’s projections are for 1,300,000 lesser USA persons in poverty and a 1/10 of a percent reduction of USA families' total incomes which are almost entire reductions from higher income families. That a proposal of net benefit to our nation's economic and social wellbeing.
Respectfully, Supposn
Refer to page 3, table 1, " Effects of Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage on Employment, Income, and Poverty, 2025"
within https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf

Well said

 

[dblack]

"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.

Hell a 15 dollar minimum wage is just the beginning, all the new wealth of this country since Reagan s trickle down lie has gone to the golden few at the top, for 40 years . Now we write tax law and benefits to do the complete opposite for the next 40 years and all the new wealth goes to everyone other then the golden few, Seems fair to me. To be fair taxes will go up massively for the Wealthy.

Why should government decide where the wealth goes? That's what the market is for.

If that was a case they wouldn't have sold the trickle down lie to the right wing brainless

That doesn't answer the question.

Congress has the (social) power to fix Standards for the Union.

No they don't. That's not the purpose of government.

 

[danielpalos]

The CBO predicted 1.4 million jobs lost. Of those jobs the most will be people who are at the low end of the wage scale.

Blues Man, 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.

CBO’s projections for aggregate lower wage-rate workers and for their families of lower incomes, are, (proportional to their total incomes) substantially much greater. Those CBO’s projections include worker and members of lower income families that are employed or unemployed .

CBO’s projections are for 1,300,000 lesser USA persons in poverty and a 1/10 of a percent reduction of USA families' total incomes which are almost entire reductions from higher income families. That a proposal of net benefit to our nation's economic and social wellbeing.
Respectfully, Supposn
Refer to page 3, table 1, " Effects of Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage on Employment, Income, and Poverty, 2025"
within https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf

and 1.4 million people losing their jobs.

A minority?

Among the unemployed, the number of persons on temporary layoff decreased in January
to 2.7 million. This measure is down considerably from the recent high of 18.0 million
in April but is 2.0 million higher than its February level. The number of permanent
job losers, at 3.5 million, changed little in January but is 2.2 million higher than
in February. The number of reentrants to the labor force decreased in January to 2.0
million. (Reentrants are persons who previously worked but were not in the labor force
prior to beginning their job search.) (See table A-11.)

In January, the number of persons jobless less than 5 weeks decreased to 2.3 million.
The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more), at 4.0
million, was about unchanged in January and accounted for 39.5 percent of the total
unemployed. (See table A-12.)

Employment Situation Summary - 2024 Q01 Results

www.bls.gov

 

[danielpalos]

and 1.4 million people losing their jobs.

Blues Man, 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.

CBO’s projections for aggregate lower wage-rate workers and for their families of lower incomes, are, (proportional to their total incomes) substantially much greater. Those CBO’s projections include worker and members of lower income families that are employed or unemployed. Respectfully, Supposn

If 1.4 million people lose their jobs how can 1.3 million people be lifted out of poverty?

Because those keeping their job will outnumber those who lose their job and will have more money to spend to engender a multiplier effect on our economy.

 

[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.

You clearly have no idea how hard it is for a single company to raise prices if the competition is not also doing it. If they raise prices while others do not, they lose business. Sane people know that.

I only clearly have some idea why you keep missing the point about a Statutory change to the minimum wage. It is why I have a difficult time believing right wingers are serious about the topics they allege to care about.

I have stated more than thrice (after thrice it is just a vice), that all of that single company's competition is going to be in the same boat regarding a Statutory minimum wage.

It sounds like you're admitting that prices would immediately go up, thus nullifying part of the benefit of higher wages. Sure, you get more in your paycheck, but then everything costs more at the same time.

Price inflation happens all the time even without a wage increase. Why do you believe price inflation would be worse with a wage increase than without a wage increase?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

 

[danielpalos]

Are you going to prove it? Or just mumble some more?

Whining ToddsterPatriot, my position relies upon the CBO's entire projections regarding the proposed “Raise the Wage” bill; you choose to ignore any of its portions that conflict with your opinions. Respectfully, Supposn

Where in a CBO report does it say, " the federal minimum wage rate is net beneficial to our economic and social welfare"?

Anywhere?

A too low of a minimum wage is not beneficial to our economic and social welfare or we would have no perceived need for any war on poverty.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A too low of a minimum wage is not beneficial

The minimum is still zero.

That's what you've earned for the last 10 years? Longer?

 

[Blues Man]

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.

What you don't understand is that a business can't just keep inflating prices because the consumer will always stop buying if they think the price is too high. So add higher prices and decreasing purchasing power and what do you get?

You get people spending less money

You are still special pleading since their competition has to do the same thing. And, minimum wage labor doubling their wage means more marginal propensity to consume. Since even the dollar menu won't double even if the minimum wage does, how are you reasoning that higher prices but increased purchasing power won't engender a multiplier effect?

That's exactly my point. Prices will go up across the board.

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

We're not talking about one place raising its prices while everyone else doesn't. Every business that employs people at less than 15 an hour will have to raise prices to cover the additional expense.

 

[jbander]

And the people who lose their jobs won't. The people who keep their jobs will have decreased purchasing power so it ain't gonna be the big economic lift you think it will be.

Why do you believe persons nearly doubling their wage will have decreased purchasing power? Statements like that are usually nothing but right wing propaganda yet you would have us believe you are not a right winger.

The people making 7.25 an hour now are going to be the ones that lose their jobs first so there won't be a huge number of people who actually see a doubling of their pay.

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

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

Amazing bullshit, if they open their mouths they are lying.

 

[Blues Man]

Whining ToddsterPatriot and Blues Man can’t handle the truth!!
Congressional Budget Office’s published projections regarding the proposed “Raise the Wage” bill describe a proposal net beneficial to our economic and social wellbeing.
Proportional to incomes, The Proposal’s particularly of greater financial benefit to USA’s aggregate lower wage rate worker and lower income families.
Respectfully, Supposn

Refer to page 3, table 1, " Effects of Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage on Employment, Income, and Poverty, 2025"
within https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf

Tell me how can something increase the net revenue of the government but still result in a 56 billion dollar addition to the deficit?

How can the people who lost their jobs be counted as being lifted out of poverty?

 

[Blues Man]

And the people who lose their jobs won't. The people who keep their jobs will have decreased purchasing power so it ain't gonna be the big economic lift you think it will be.

Why do you believe persons nearly doubling their wage will have decreased purchasing power? Statements like that are usually nothing but right wing propaganda yet you would have us believe you are not a right winger.

The people making 7.25 an hour now are going to be the ones that lose their jobs first so there won't be a huge number of people who actually see a doubling of their pay.

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

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

Amazing bullshit, if they open their mouths they are lying.

So the CBO did not predict the loss of 1.4 million jobs?

 

[Blues Man]

And the people who lose their jobs won't. The people who keep their jobs will have decreased purchasing power so it ain't gonna be the big economic lift you think it will be.

Why do you believe persons nearly doubling their wage will have decreased purchasing power? Statements like that are usually nothing but right wing propaganda yet you would have us believe you are not a right winger.

The people making 7.25 an hour now are going to be the ones that lose their jobs first so there won't be a huge number of people who actually see a doubling of their pay.

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

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

That is just you ignoring the CBO report you like to cite.

Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion,

Real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion,

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

And, more comprehensive unemployment compensation can mitigate the loss of real earnings of those disemployed.

If I am citing from the CBO report how am I ignoring it? The CBO report also says that the 15 an hour wage will add 56 billion to the budget deficits. So tell me if the deficit increases how do you figure that the net revenue to the government in taxes increases?


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

10% make less than 11 an hour

2% make the federal minimum wage.

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

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

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

 

[jbander]

And the people who lose their jobs won't. The people who keep their jobs will have decreased purchasing power so it ain't gonna be the big economic lift you think it will be.

Why do you believe persons nearly doubling their wage will have decreased purchasing power? Statements like that are usually nothing but right wing propaganda yet you would have us believe you are not a right winger.

The people making 7.25 an hour now are going to be the ones that lose their jobs first so there won't be a huge number of people who actually see a doubling of their pay.

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

And if you actually read what I have written I said it's the people who are making close to 15 an hour now that will see their purchasing power decrease.
Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion,

Real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion,
FYI it's less than 2% of all workers.

Amazing bullshit, if they open their mouths they are lying.

So the CBO did not predict the loss of 1.4 million jobs?

Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion,

Real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion,

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

Brainless quote"That's exactly my point. Prices will go up across the board." SOMEONE WITH THE CAPACITY TO THINK-Tell us since most of our industry's pay over 15 dollars an hour now ,. why in the hell would it be across the board , that just stupid. You got nothing that is worth even looking at. When you say anything it's a lie or a distortion, never just the facts, endless lies around a few facts.

 

[Blues Man]

And the people who lose their jobs won't. The people who keep their jobs will have decreased purchasing power so it ain't gonna be the big economic lift you think it will be.

Why do you believe persons nearly doubling their wage will have decreased purchasing power? Statements like that are usually nothing but right wing propaganda yet you would have us believe you are not a right winger.

The people making 7.25 an hour now are going to be the ones that lose their jobs first so there won't be a huge number of people who actually see a doubling of their pay.

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

And if you actually read what I have written I said it's the people who are making close to 15 an hour now that will see their purchasing power decrease.
Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion,

Real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion,
FYI it's less than 2% of all workers.

Amazing bullshit, if they open their mouths they are lying.

So the CBO did not predict the loss of 1.4 million jobs?

Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion,

Real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion,

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

Brainless quote"That's exactly my point. Prices will go up across the board." SOMEONE WITH THE CAPACITY TO THINK-Tell us since most of our industry's pay over 15 dollars an hour now ,. why in the hell would it be across the board , that just stupid. You got nothing that is worth even looking at. When you say anything it's a lie or a distortion, never just the facts, endless lies around a few facts.

Did the CBO not say that 1.4 million jobs would be lost>?

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

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-02/56975-Minimum-Wage.pdf

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

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

Employment would be reduced by 1.4 million workers,