Democrats should immediately confront the minimum wage rate.

[Hutch Starskey]

Democrats regained the congressional House. Now they should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate issue.

I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.

It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.

Possible House’s negotiating positions:

The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.

The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.

I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.

Respectfully, Supposn

Great, more paper for Mitch's recycle bin. That's about as far as it would get.

.

Why do you hate your fellow working Americans?

How many years should it remain at the same rate?

Forever.

That makes sense.

 

[AntonToo]

I agree that they should confront the federal minimum wage rate. They should abolish it completely and let States do their own thing.

They won't but they should

Why not let people do their own thing? If I could do a job someone needs done for $5.50 an hour, why not allow me to bid the job at that rate?

.

Because individuals at that level of income have little leverage and are willing to work for what enough people see as unfair compensation.

For example, I would consider working at fast food joint HARDER work than my own, even though it pays only a fraction of what I make. Minimum wage helps to even out a bit common compensaiton disparity like that.

So you don't want to give them a choice?

.

I want to give them no choice but to take more pay.

It's not as simple as that. If the labor I'm offering isn't worth the minimum, the "choice" is unemployment.

That's the core delusion of minimum wage laws. They pretend to force employers to pay employees at least the minimum wage, but they don't. Instead, they prohibit them from paying less.

It's a subtle, but very real distinction. If the labor I'm offering isn't worth $15/hr, I'm not allowed to work for less. I'm forced to sit on the sidelines, or go underground.

In the general sense it actualy IS as simple as that.

Most will get a raise, a few will lose a job but LOOKING AT THE ENTIRETY OF THE EFFECT, the incomes on the low end go up.

 

[dblack]

Why not let people do their own thing? If I could do a job someone needs done for $5.50 an hour, why not allow me to bid the job at that rate?

.

Because individuals at that level of income have little leverage and are willing to work for what enough people see as unfair compensation.

For example, I would consider working at fast food joint HARDER work than my own, even though it pays only a fraction of what I make. Minimum wage helps to even out a bit common compensaiton disparity like that.

So you don't want to give them a choice?

.

I want to give them no choice but to take more pay.

It's not as simple as that. If the labor I'm offering isn't worth the minimum, the "choice" is unemployment.

That's the core delusion of minimum wage laws. They pretend to force employers to pay employees at least the minimum wage, but they don't. Instead, they prohibit them from paying less.

It's a subtle, but very real distinction. If the labor I'm offering isn't worth $15/hr, I'm not allowed to work for less. I'm forced to sit on the sidelines, or go underground.

In the general sense it actualy IS as simple as that.

Most will get a raise, a few will lose a job but LOOKING AT THE ENTIRETY OF THE EFFECT, the incomes on the low end go up.

The usual. Someone's gotta take one for team.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You get paid what you're worth. Period.

Getting paid minimum wage? If you're not a kid still living at home, a retiree or mentally handicapped, that says a lot about the choices you've made in life.

Raising the minimum wage won't unscrew what you've done with your life.

So, MW ought to be a punishment for poor choices then?

If you try dope and get hooked, don't you punish yourself for bad choices?
If you get drunk and kill another motorist, don't you get punished for bad choices?
If you take out a loan or credit card, can't repay what you borrow, don't you get punished for bad choices?

We all get punished for bad choices, but we don't expect government to make amends for our poor choices. We don't punish people that made better choices in life; well, maybe Democrats try to.

Point is that the punishment we get for making bad choices is self inflicted. Nobody punishes us but ourselves in most cases.

So your answer is yes then?

Nice to know that you see something wrong with people who are less fortunate than yourself.

That's a pretty douchey attitude for a truck driver.

Less fortunate, or less energetic, less motivated, less goal minded?

 

[Andylusion]

Second, there is not one single example in all human history, where the increasing the minimum wage did NOT cause unemployment. There is nothing 'generous' about putting people out of work.

Third, there is nothing about the minimum wage that reduces income disparities, because the minimum wage, regardless of what the law says, is always zero.

Not a single person came on after the minimum wage hike of 1996, or the minimum wage hike of 2007-2009, and said "Look disparities have decreased!"

My point is, the minimum wage does nothing that you claim it does. It does not 'moderate some excesses', nor does it reduce disparity, nor is it 'generous'. There isn't a single aspect of the minimum wage that is good, and plenty that are bad.

When minimum wage goes up salaries for people at around that income level go up (REAL-ly), even when accounting for some slight job contraction and inflationary effects.

Thats what common sense tells us and it just so happens to coincide with what mainstream economists find as well.

Put down the crack pipe and read up:

The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income | Congressional Budget Office

Again, nothing you said, contradict what I said.

What point are you trying to make?

Yes it does idiot.

You say minimum wage does not increase pay for low income people, does not reduce income disparity.

I say you are wrong and support that with CBO's findings.

Now how the hell could you possibly read that as not contradicting you??

Ah I see. Instead of being needlessly insulting, you should have simply explained that.

I never said that raising the minimum wage does not increase the wages of those who are still working.

What I said was, that it does not decrease income disparity.

Those are not mutually exclusive. Both can be true.

How?

Because there is a particularly important group of people that is not included in those CBO findings.

Yes, again... the people who are still working...... earn more.

What about the people who are not working anymore? Huh?

See all that CBO data, excludes the people who are affected the most by these policies. The people who are now unemployed.

If you includes those people, into the equation, of the disparity of incomes..... then disparity is worse, than before you increased the minimum wage.

And honestly, I have never understood why those statistic magically exclude the people who are earning zero. Because logically.... if you are going to measure the effects of the minimum wage, wouldn't you include the people who are affected the most?

Think about it.... who is affected the MOST by the minimum wage?

I was working at McDonald's in the 1990s, when Billy boy Clinton, raised the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15.

The first thing that McDonald's did, was lay off 3 part-time employees. Now why part time employees? Because all the rest of us full-time employees were already making $5/hour or more. Minimum wage, even at the fast-food joints, is usually reserved for people who are part-time or bran new employees.

I didn't get any increase in my pay whatsoever. Now a few people, who were new, but full-time, they immediately went to $5.15/hour

So let me ask you.... Which people were affected by the minimum wage the most? The few people who gained $36 a week in pay? A gain they would have gotten anyway after being on for a few weeks?

Or the people whose income dropped to zero, because they were laid off?

And yet, those people whose income dropped to zero, are not included in those CBO charts of the affects of minimum wage. The people who are affected the most, are not on the charts of the effects of Minimum wage.

And here's the other side to it........ long-term verse short-term.

The CBO numbers only tend to look at immediate effects. What about long term effects?

Even those people who get the pay raise, eventually that store has to pass that cost on to consumers. By raising and raising prices to cover those increased costs.

But slowly over time, sometimes even years..... consumers start to move away from those expenses.

As the market slowly dwindles, the store owners eventually realize it isn't worth it anymore, and close the store.

That could be 5 or 10 years later that the store closes, without anyone, not even the store owner himself, realizing the trigger was the raise in the minimum wage.

Same is true of inflation. Inflation does not happen in an instant. The CBO numbers do not look at inflationary effects over a long time period. The much higher cost of rent in 2012, could be, and likely is, a result of a minimum wage hike in 2007-09.

This is why increasing the minimum wage, only results in more demands to increase the minimum wage. It is no shock to me that after the large hike in the minimum wage from 2007 to 2009, resulted in a demand for an even larger hike in the minimum wage just a mere 3 years later.

Yes in the extreme short term, you can see a tiny bump in incomes, and a small amount of job loss, and a small amount of inflation.

But if you look at the long term, including all those job losses immediate and future, and the inflation immediate and future, it all balances out, and you are no better off, and in some cases worse off.

Again, all the minimum wage hikes around the world, have not had good results. And equally you look at some of the best economies of Europe, and most have, or had until only recently, no minimum wage. Germany, the economic power house of Europe, never had a minimum wage until 2015. The economic leader of all of Europe, no minimum wage until just recently. That should tell you something.

(and as a side note, it was workers who complained that refugees were doing their jobs for a cheaper wage, that prompted the minimum wage law. The whole point was to exclude refugees from the work force.)

And lastly, the idea that this is a solution to wage disparity is still ridiculous.

To get into the top 5%, you need to earn $215K a year. You think that Adding $2/hour to your income, at $7.25, to $9.25, is going to make you anywhere close to parity?

Besides that, living a better life, is more about being wise with your money. I know people who literally earn double my income, and live impoverished, while I have money in my pocket. It has more to do with spending less than you make, and investing wisely.

Hey dumbass (compeletely nescessary!) why do you keep wasting our time?


I CLEARLY said that even with adjustment for job loss and inflation income goes up.

CBO study shows REAL income growth which accounts for both.

JUST FUCKING READ:

I'm telling you straight up, those numbers are wrong. You are believing a lie. That calculation does not include the real loss of jobs, or the real inflation. They say they do... they don't.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Why not let people do their own thing? If I could do a job someone needs done for $5.50 an hour, why not allow me to bid the job at that rate?

.

Because individuals at that level of income have little leverage and are willing to work for what enough people see as unfair compensation.

For example, I would consider working at fast food joint HARDER work than my own, even though it pays only a fraction of what I make. Minimum wage helps to even out a bit common compensaiton disparity like that.

So you don't want to give them a choice?

.

I want to give them no choice but to take more pay.

It's not as simple as that. If the labor I'm offering isn't worth the minimum, the "choice" is unemployment.

That's the core delusion of minimum wage laws. They pretend to force employers to pay employees at least the minimum wage, but they don't. Instead, they prohibit them from paying less.

It's a subtle, but very real distinction. If the labor I'm offering isn't worth $15/hr, I'm not allowed to work for less. I'm forced to sit on the sidelines, or go underground.

In the general sense it actualy IS as simple as that.

Most will get a raise, a few will lose a job but LOOKING AT THE ENTIRETY OF THE EFFECT, the incomes on the low end go up.

But the rest goes down.


.

 

[OKTexas]

I agree that they should confront the federal minimum wage rate. They should abolish it completely and let States do their own thing.

They won't but they should

Why not let people do their own thing? If I could do a job someone needs done for $5.50 an hour, why not allow me to bid the job at that rate?

.

Because individuals at that level of income have little leverage and are willing to work for what enough people see as unfair compensation.

For example, I would consider working at fast food joint HARDER work than my own, even though it pays only a fraction of what I make. Minimum wage helps to even out a bit common compensaiton disparity like that.

So you don't want to give them a choice?

.

I want to give them no choice but to take more pay.

Funny how generous you commies can be with other peoples money.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Second, there is not one single example in all human history, where the increasing the minimum wage did NOT cause unemployment. There is nothing 'generous' about putting people out of work.

Third, there is nothing about the minimum wage that reduces income disparities, because the minimum wage, regardless of what the law says, is always zero.

Not a single person came on after the minimum wage hike of 1996, or the minimum wage hike of 2007-2009, and said "Look disparities have decreased!"

My point is, the minimum wage does nothing that you claim it does. It does not 'moderate some excesses', nor does it reduce disparity, nor is it 'generous'. There isn't a single aspect of the minimum wage that is good, and plenty that are bad.

When minimum wage goes up salaries for people at around that income level go up (REAL-ly), even when accounting for some slight job contraction and inflationary effects.

Thats what common sense tells us and it just so happens to coincide with what mainstream economists find as well.

Put down the crack pipe and read up:

The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income | Congressional Budget Office

Again, nothing you said, contradict what I said.

What point are you trying to make?

Yes it does idiot.

You say minimum wage does not increase pay for low income people, does not reduce income disparity.

I say you are wrong and support that with CBO's findings.

Now how the hell could you possibly read that as not contradicting you??

Ah I see. Instead of being needlessly insulting, you should have simply explained that.

I never said that raising the minimum wage does not increase the wages of those who are still working.

What I said was, that it does not decrease income disparity.

Those are not mutually exclusive. Both can be true.

How?

Because there is a particularly important group of people that is not included in those CBO findings.

Yes, again... the people who are still working...... earn more.

What about the people who are not working anymore? Huh?

See all that CBO data, excludes the people who are affected the most by these policies. The people who are now unemployed.

If you includes those people, into the equation, of the disparity of incomes..... then disparity is worse, than before you increased the minimum wage.

And honestly, I have never understood why those statistic magically exclude the people who are earning zero. Because logically.... if you are going to measure the effects of the minimum wage, wouldn't you include the people who are affected the most?

Think about it.... who is affected the MOST by the minimum wage?

I was working at McDonald's in the 1990s, when Billy boy Clinton, raised the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15.

The first thing that McDonald's did, was lay off 3 part-time employees. Now why part time employees? Because all the rest of us full-time employees were already making $5/hour or more. Minimum wage, even at the fast-food joints, is usually reserved for people who are part-time or bran new employees.

I didn't get any increase in my pay whatsoever. Now a few people, who were new, but full-time, they immediately went to $5.15/hour

So let me ask you.... Which people were affected by the minimum wage the most? The few people who gained $36 a week in pay? A gain they would have gotten anyway after being on for a few weeks?

Or the people whose income dropped to zero, because they were laid off?

And yet, those people whose income dropped to zero, are not included in those CBO charts of the affects of minimum wage. The people who are affected the most, are not on the charts of the effects of Minimum wage.

And here's the other side to it........ long-term verse short-term.

The CBO numbers only tend to look at immediate effects. What about long term effects?

Even those people who get the pay raise, eventually that store has to pass that cost on to consumers. By raising and raising prices to cover those increased costs.

But slowly over time, sometimes even years..... consumers start to move away from those expenses.

As the market slowly dwindles, the store owners eventually realize it isn't worth it anymore, and close the store.

That could be 5 or 10 years later that the store closes, without anyone, not even the store owner himself, realizing the trigger was the raise in the minimum wage.

Same is true of inflation. Inflation does not happen in an instant. The CBO numbers do not look at inflationary effects over a long time period. The much higher cost of rent in 2012, could be, and likely is, a result of a minimum wage hike in 2007-09.

This is why increasing the minimum wage, only results in more demands to increase the minimum wage. It is no shock to me that after the large hike in the minimum wage from 2007 to 2009, resulted in a demand for an even larger hike in the minimum wage just a mere 3 years later.

Yes in the extreme short term, you can see a tiny bump in incomes, and a small amount of job loss, and a small amount of inflation.

But if you look at the long term, including all those job losses immediate and future, and the inflation immediate and future, it all balances out, and you are no better off, and in some cases worse off.

Again, all the minimum wage hikes around the world, have not had good results. And equally you look at some of the best economies of Europe, and most have, or had until only recently, no minimum wage. Germany, the economic power house of Europe, never had a minimum wage until 2015. The economic leader of all of Europe, no minimum wage until just recently. That should tell you something.

(and as a side note, it was workers who complained that refugees were doing their jobs for a cheaper wage, that prompted the minimum wage law. The whole point was to exclude refugees from the work force.)

And lastly, the idea that this is a solution to wage disparity is still ridiculous.

To get into the top 5%, you need to earn $215K a year. You think that Adding $2/hour to your income, at $7.25, to $9.25, is going to make you anywhere close to parity?

Besides that, living a better life, is more about being wise with your money. I know people who literally earn double my income, and live impoverished, while I have money in my pocket. It has more to do with spending less than you make, and investing wisely.

Hey dumbass (compeletely nescessary!) why do you keep wasting our time?


I CLEARLY said that even with adjustment for job loss and inflation income goes up.

CBO study shows REAL income growth which accounts for both.

JUST FUCKING READ:

Name once the CBO ever got anything remotely accurate. They score shit the way they are told to score it, and ignore shit they're told not to include. The CBO is the last place I would go for any reflection of reality.

.

 

[AntonToo]

When minimum wage goes up salaries for people at around that income level go up (REAL-ly), even when accounting for some slight job contraction and inflationary effects.

Thats what common sense tells us and it just so happens to coincide with what mainstream economists find as well.

Put down the crack pipe and read up:

The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income | Congressional Budget Office

Again, nothing you said, contradict what I said.

What point are you trying to make?

Yes it does idiot.

You say minimum wage does not increase pay for low income people, does not reduce income disparity.

I say you are wrong and support that with CBO's findings.

Now how the hell could you possibly read that as not contradicting you??

Ah I see. Instead of being needlessly insulting, you should have simply explained that.

I never said that raising the minimum wage does not increase the wages of those who are still working.

What I said was, that it does not decrease income disparity.

Those are not mutually exclusive. Both can be true.

How?

Because there is a particularly important group of people that is not included in those CBO findings.

Yes, again... the people who are still working...... earn more.

What about the people who are not working anymore? Huh?

See all that CBO data, excludes the people who are affected the most by these policies. The people who are now unemployed.

If you includes those people, into the equation, of the disparity of incomes..... then disparity is worse, than before you increased the minimum wage.

And honestly, I have never understood why those statistic magically exclude the people who are earning zero. Because logically.... if you are going to measure the effects of the minimum wage, wouldn't you include the people who are affected the most?

Think about it.... who is affected the MOST by the minimum wage?

I was working at McDonald's in the 1990s, when Billy boy Clinton, raised the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15.

The first thing that McDonald's did, was lay off 3 part-time employees. Now why part time employees? Because all the rest of us full-time employees were already making $5/hour or more. Minimum wage, even at the fast-food joints, is usually reserved for people who are part-time or bran new employees.

I didn't get any increase in my pay whatsoever. Now a few people, who were new, but full-time, they immediately went to $5.15/hour

So let me ask you.... Which people were affected by the minimum wage the most? The few people who gained $36 a week in pay? A gain they would have gotten anyway after being on for a few weeks?

Or the people whose income dropped to zero, because they were laid off?

And yet, those people whose income dropped to zero, are not included in those CBO charts of the affects of minimum wage. The people who are affected the most, are not on the charts of the effects of Minimum wage.

And here's the other side to it........ long-term verse short-term.

The CBO numbers only tend to look at immediate effects. What about long term effects?

Even those people who get the pay raise, eventually that store has to pass that cost on to consumers. By raising and raising prices to cover those increased costs.

But slowly over time, sometimes even years..... consumers start to move away from those expenses.

As the market slowly dwindles, the store owners eventually realize it isn't worth it anymore, and close the store.

That could be 5 or 10 years later that the store closes, without anyone, not even the store owner himself, realizing the trigger was the raise in the minimum wage.

Same is true of inflation. Inflation does not happen in an instant. The CBO numbers do not look at inflationary effects over a long time period. The much higher cost of rent in 2012, could be, and likely is, a result of a minimum wage hike in 2007-09.

This is why increasing the minimum wage, only results in more demands to increase the minimum wage. It is no shock to me that after the large hike in the minimum wage from 2007 to 2009, resulted in a demand for an even larger hike in the minimum wage just a mere 3 years later.

Yes in the extreme short term, you can see a tiny bump in incomes, and a small amount of job loss, and a small amount of inflation.

But if you look at the long term, including all those job losses immediate and future, and the inflation immediate and future, it all balances out, and you are no better off, and in some cases worse off.

Again, all the minimum wage hikes around the world, have not had good results. And equally you look at some of the best economies of Europe, and most have, or had until only recently, no minimum wage. Germany, the economic power house of Europe, never had a minimum wage until 2015. The economic leader of all of Europe, no minimum wage until just recently. That should tell you something.

(and as a side note, it was workers who complained that refugees were doing their jobs for a cheaper wage, that prompted the minimum wage law. The whole point was to exclude refugees from the work force.)

And lastly, the idea that this is a solution to wage disparity is still ridiculous.

To get into the top 5%, you need to earn $215K a year. You think that Adding $2/hour to your income, at $7.25, to $9.25, is going to make you anywhere close to parity?

Besides that, living a better life, is more about being wise with your money. I know people who literally earn double my income, and live impoverished, while I have money in my pocket. It has more to do with spending less than you make, and investing wisely.

Hey dumbass (compeletely nescessary!) why do you keep wasting our time?


I CLEARLY said that even with adjustment for job loss and inflation income goes up.

CBO study shows REAL income growth which accounts for both.

JUST FUCKING READ:

Name once the CBO ever got anything remotely accurate. They score shit the way they are told to score it, and ignore shit they're told not to include. The CBO is the last place I would go for any reflection of reality.
.

Must be nice to believe whatever the fuck you want to.

CBO DOES NOT simply “score the way they are told to score”, that’s a load of bullshit.

CBO also did a study on accuracy of its own forecasting (which is not magical crystal balling you maybe have as your standard) if you actually want a real answer to your question:


http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43846-ForecastingRecord.pdf

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Again, nothing you said, contradict what I said.

What point are you trying to make?

Yes it does idiot.

You say minimum wage does not increase pay for low income people, does not reduce income disparity.

I say you are wrong and support that with CBO's findings.

Now how the hell could you possibly read that as not contradicting you??

Ah I see. Instead of being needlessly insulting, you should have simply explained that.

I never said that raising the minimum wage does not increase the wages of those who are still working.

What I said was, that it does not decrease income disparity.

Those are not mutually exclusive. Both can be true.

How?

Because there is a particularly important group of people that is not included in those CBO findings.

Yes, again... the people who are still working...... earn more.

What about the people who are not working anymore? Huh?

See all that CBO data, excludes the people who are affected the most by these policies. The people who are now unemployed.

If you includes those people, into the equation, of the disparity of incomes..... then disparity is worse, than before you increased the minimum wage.

And honestly, I have never understood why those statistic magically exclude the people who are earning zero. Because logically.... if you are going to measure the effects of the minimum wage, wouldn't you include the people who are affected the most?

Think about it.... who is affected the MOST by the minimum wage?

I was working at McDonald's in the 1990s, when Billy boy Clinton, raised the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15.

The first thing that McDonald's did, was lay off 3 part-time employees. Now why part time employees? Because all the rest of us full-time employees were already making $5/hour or more. Minimum wage, even at the fast-food joints, is usually reserved for people who are part-time or bran new employees.

I didn't get any increase in my pay whatsoever. Now a few people, who were new, but full-time, they immediately went to $5.15/hour

So let me ask you.... Which people were affected by the minimum wage the most? The few people who gained $36 a week in pay? A gain they would have gotten anyway after being on for a few weeks?

Or the people whose income dropped to zero, because they were laid off?

And yet, those people whose income dropped to zero, are not included in those CBO charts of the affects of minimum wage. The people who are affected the most, are not on the charts of the effects of Minimum wage.

And here's the other side to it........ long-term verse short-term.

The CBO numbers only tend to look at immediate effects. What about long term effects?

Even those people who get the pay raise, eventually that store has to pass that cost on to consumers. By raising and raising prices to cover those increased costs.

But slowly over time, sometimes even years..... consumers start to move away from those expenses.

As the market slowly dwindles, the store owners eventually realize it isn't worth it anymore, and close the store.

That could be 5 or 10 years later that the store closes, without anyone, not even the store owner himself, realizing the trigger was the raise in the minimum wage.

Same is true of inflation. Inflation does not happen in an instant. The CBO numbers do not look at inflationary effects over a long time period. The much higher cost of rent in 2012, could be, and likely is, a result of a minimum wage hike in 2007-09.

This is why increasing the minimum wage, only results in more demands to increase the minimum wage. It is no shock to me that after the large hike in the minimum wage from 2007 to 2009, resulted in a demand for an even larger hike in the minimum wage just a mere 3 years later.

Yes in the extreme short term, you can see a tiny bump in incomes, and a small amount of job loss, and a small amount of inflation.

But if you look at the long term, including all those job losses immediate and future, and the inflation immediate and future, it all balances out, and you are no better off, and in some cases worse off.

Again, all the minimum wage hikes around the world, have not had good results. And equally you look at some of the best economies of Europe, and most have, or had until only recently, no minimum wage. Germany, the economic power house of Europe, never had a minimum wage until 2015. The economic leader of all of Europe, no minimum wage until just recently. That should tell you something.

(and as a side note, it was workers who complained that refugees were doing their jobs for a cheaper wage, that prompted the minimum wage law. The whole point was to exclude refugees from the work force.)

And lastly, the idea that this is a solution to wage disparity is still ridiculous.

To get into the top 5%, you need to earn $215K a year. You think that Adding $2/hour to your income, at $7.25, to $9.25, is going to make you anywhere close to parity?

Besides that, living a better life, is more about being wise with your money. I know people who literally earn double my income, and live impoverished, while I have money in my pocket. It has more to do with spending less than you make, and investing wisely.

Hey dumbass (compeletely nescessary!) why do you keep wasting our time?


I CLEARLY said that even with adjustment for job loss and inflation income goes up.

CBO study shows REAL income growth which accounts for both.

JUST FUCKING READ:

Name once the CBO ever got anything remotely accurate. They score shit the way they are told to score it, and ignore shit they're told not to include. The CBO is the last place I would go for any reflection of reality.
.

Must be nice to believe whatever the fuck you want to.

CBO DOES NOT simply “score the way they are told to score”, that’s a load of bullshit.

CBO also did a study on accuracy of its own forecasting (which is not magical crystal balling you maybe have as your standard) if you actually want a real answer to your question:


http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43846-ForecastingRecord.pdf

The CBO only scores on the information they are provided. They don't search for additional information. They are presented with numbers, and calculate those numbers given.

 

[AntonToo]

Yes it does idiot.

You say minimum wage does not increase pay for low income people, does not reduce income disparity.

I say you are wrong and support that with CBO's findings.

Now how the hell could you possibly read that as not contradicting you??

Ah I see. Instead of being needlessly insulting, you should have simply explained that.

I never said that raising the minimum wage does not increase the wages of those who are still working.

What I said was, that it does not decrease income disparity.

Those are not mutually exclusive. Both can be true.

How?

Because there is a particularly important group of people that is not included in those CBO findings.

Yes, again... the people who are still working...... earn more.

What about the people who are not working anymore? Huh?

See all that CBO data, excludes the people who are affected the most by these policies. The people who are now unemployed.

If you includes those people, into the equation, of the disparity of incomes..... then disparity is worse, than before you increased the minimum wage.

And honestly, I have never understood why those statistic magically exclude the people who are earning zero. Because logically.... if you are going to measure the effects of the minimum wage, wouldn't you include the people who are affected the most?

Think about it.... who is affected the MOST by the minimum wage?

I was working at McDonald's in the 1990s, when Billy boy Clinton, raised the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15.

The first thing that McDonald's did, was lay off 3 part-time employees. Now why part time employees? Because all the rest of us full-time employees were already making $5/hour or more. Minimum wage, even at the fast-food joints, is usually reserved for people who are part-time or bran new employees.

I didn't get any increase in my pay whatsoever. Now a few people, who were new, but full-time, they immediately went to $5.15/hour

So let me ask you.... Which people were affected by the minimum wage the most? The few people who gained $36 a week in pay? A gain they would have gotten anyway after being on for a few weeks?

Or the people whose income dropped to zero, because they were laid off?

And yet, those people whose income dropped to zero, are not included in those CBO charts of the affects of minimum wage. The people who are affected the most, are not on the charts of the effects of Minimum wage.

And here's the other side to it........ long-term verse short-term.

The CBO numbers only tend to look at immediate effects. What about long term effects?

Even those people who get the pay raise, eventually that store has to pass that cost on to consumers. By raising and raising prices to cover those increased costs.

But slowly over time, sometimes even years..... consumers start to move away from those expenses.

As the market slowly dwindles, the store owners eventually realize it isn't worth it anymore, and close the store.

That could be 5 or 10 years later that the store closes, without anyone, not even the store owner himself, realizing the trigger was the raise in the minimum wage.

Same is true of inflation. Inflation does not happen in an instant. The CBO numbers do not look at inflationary effects over a long time period. The much higher cost of rent in 2012, could be, and likely is, a result of a minimum wage hike in 2007-09.

This is why increasing the minimum wage, only results in more demands to increase the minimum wage. It is no shock to me that after the large hike in the minimum wage from 2007 to 2009, resulted in a demand for an even larger hike in the minimum wage just a mere 3 years later.

Yes in the extreme short term, you can see a tiny bump in incomes, and a small amount of job loss, and a small amount of inflation.

But if you look at the long term, including all those job losses immediate and future, and the inflation immediate and future, it all balances out, and you are no better off, and in some cases worse off.

Again, all the minimum wage hikes around the world, have not had good results. And equally you look at some of the best economies of Europe, and most have, or had until only recently, no minimum wage. Germany, the economic power house of Europe, never had a minimum wage until 2015. The economic leader of all of Europe, no minimum wage until just recently. That should tell you something.

(and as a side note, it was workers who complained that refugees were doing their jobs for a cheaper wage, that prompted the minimum wage law. The whole point was to exclude refugees from the work force.)

And lastly, the idea that this is a solution to wage disparity is still ridiculous.

To get into the top 5%, you need to earn $215K a year. You think that Adding $2/hour to your income, at $7.25, to $9.25, is going to make you anywhere close to parity?

Besides that, living a better life, is more about being wise with your money. I know people who literally earn double my income, and live impoverished, while I have money in my pocket. It has more to do with spending less than you make, and investing wisely.

Hey dumbass (compeletely nescessary!) why do you keep wasting our time?


I CLEARLY said that even with adjustment for job loss and inflation income goes up.

CBO study shows REAL income growth which accounts for both.

JUST FUCKING READ:

Name once the CBO ever got anything remotely accurate. They score shit the way they are told to score it, and ignore shit they're told not to include. The CBO is the last place I would go for any reflection of reality.
.

Must be nice to believe whatever the fuck you want to.

CBO DOES NOT simply “score the way they are told to score”, that’s a load of bullshit.

CBO also did a study on accuracy of its own forecasting (which is not magical crystal balling you maybe have as your standard) if you actually want a real answer to your question:


http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43846-ForecastingRecord.pdf

The CBO only scores on the information they are provided. They don't search for additional information. They are presented with numbers, and calculate those numbers given.

That’s just bs I keep hearing from righties, but thats just a load of bullshit you heard from somewhere as anyone who is familiar with CBO’s work would tell you.

 

[danielpalos]

I agree that they should confront the federal minimum wage rate. They should abolish it completely and let States do their own thing.

They won't but they should

Why not let people do their own thing? If I could do a job someone needs done for $5.50 an hour, why not allow me to bid the job at that rate?

.

Because individuals at that level of income have little leverage and are willing to work for what enough people see as unfair compensation.

For example, I would consider working at fast food joint HARDER work than my own, even though it pays only a fraction of what I make. Minimum wage helps to even out a bit common compensaiton disparity like that.

So you don't want to give them a choice?

.

I want to give them no choice but to take more pay.

It's not as simple as that. If the labor I'm offering isn't worth the minimum, the "choice" is unemployment.

That's the core delusion of minimum wage laws. They pretend to force employers to pay employees at least the minimum wage, but they don't. Instead, they prohibit them from paying less.

It's a subtle, but very real distinction. If the labor I'm offering isn't worth $15/hr, I'm not allowed to work for less. I'm forced to sit on the sidelines, or go underground.

Compensation for Capitalism's Natural Rate of Unemployment!