Did the Congressional Budget Office deliberately less inform the Congress and the public?

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
63,332
Reaction score
11,946
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
The applicable minimum wage rate directly or almost directly effects incomes and unemployment benefits derived from employees’ earning rates within the low-wage-rate bracket of rates.

Congressional Budget Office’s (I.e. CBO’s) report concerning proposed increases of the federal minimum wage rate, employ poverty threshold statistics to differentiate between families’ incomes and their families’ sizes’ ratios of their poverty thresholds.
CBO reports upon the proposed increases of federal minimum rates, and the increases of families’ different poverty threshold brackets within the years’ 2018 and 2025 duration.

Individual families’ total incomes proportional “mixes” of wages within their total incomes, greatly vary. Aggregate families’ wage incomes proportional “mixes” within different brackets of poverty thresholds, greatly vary. Aggregate families’ low-wage-rate incomes proportional “mixes” within different brackets of poverty thresholds, greatly vary.

It is logical to expect minimum wage rate will have little or no effects upon: (1) Wages other than low-wage-rate wages. (2) Incomes or benefits not directly or nearly directly derived from wages.

CBO’s reports of proposed increasing our federal minimum wage rate, support validity of the concepts: (1) Applicable minimum wage rates, to the extents of their purchasing power and enforcement, reduce the incidences and extents of poverty among the working-poor. This is its purpose and justification.
(2) Minimum rate’s benefits to jobs’ rates are inversely related to the differences between the rates, lower rates more, higher rates less favored by the minimum rate.
Respectfully, Supposn
CBO’s reports of proposed increasing our federal minimum wage rate, support validity of the concepts: (1) Applicable minimum wage rates, to the extents of their purchasing power and enforcement, reduce the incidences and extents of poverty among the working-poor. This is its purpose and justification.

Support?
They don't actually say?
That's you, not them.

Glad you cleared that up.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
63,118
Reaction score
2,894
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
It is logical to expect minimum wage rate will have little or no effects upon: (1) Wages other than low-wage-rate wages. (2) Incomes or benefits not directly or nearly directly derived from wages.
In other words, inflation from minimum wage increases is not usually very statistically significant?
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,002
Reaction score
115
Points
85
CBO’s reports of proposed increasing our federal minimum wage rate, support validity of the concepts: (1) Applicable minimum wage rates, to the extents of their purchasing power and enforcement, reduce the incidences and extents of poverty among the working-poor. This is its purpose and justification.

Support? They don't actually say? That's you, not them.
Glad you cleared that up.
ToddsterPatriot, referring to The Effects on Employment and Family Income of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage ,page 3, Table 1, “Effects of Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage on Employment, Income, and Poverty, 2025”, the table supports these of MY statements:

  • Federal minimum wage rate supports all rates within the low-wage-rate bracket of wage rates, but it does not support all rates equally. Its support’s inversely related to the differences between the minimum and the jobs’ rates; lower rates are more, and higher rates are less supported by the minimum rate. Do you or whatever you consider to be a credible source, argue otherwise?
  • The federal minimum wage rate, to the extent of its purchasing power, reduces the numbers and extents of poverty among the working poor. That’s its purpose, and justification. Do you or whatever you consider to be a credible source, argue that the U.S. Congress that passed each of the rate’s increases and the presidents that signed off on them, did so for other nefarious reasons or purposes? Will you or they argue that it’s of no net benefit to the working-poor?
  • Minimum wage rate, due to employers’ wage differential practices, more or less directly support rates within low-wage-rate bracket of rates. It does not support incomes or benefits derived from any other than low-wage-rates. Do you or whatever you consider to be a credible source, argue otherwise?
  • The table itself indicates increases of the minimum rate consequentially increase total incomes of families of incomes below three times their poverty thresholds. CBO projected increases of those families’ TOTAL incomes ranged from 5.2% to 3.5%. It is reasonable to infer, because the minimum rate only supports low-wage-rate incomes, Minimum rate increases upon only those families’ low-wage-rate incomes must range from a much greater than a 5.2% to 3.5% of those families wage incomes. Do you or whatever you consider to be a credible source, argue otherwise?
  • The table itself indicates increases of the minimum rate consequentially reduces total incomes of families of incomes three or more times greater than their poverty thresholds by a range between zero and greater than1/3 percent of their families’ total incomes. But minimum wage rates do not reduce the purchasing power of any wage rates and as non-working-poor families incomes increase, greater portions of their total incomes are derived from non-wage incomes. Any consequential reduction of higher income families’ wages would be less than 1/3 of a percent of those families’ total wages. Do you or whatever you consider to be a credible source, argue otherwise?
  • The table itself indicates increases of the minimum rate consequentially would reduce those persons in poverty by 1.3 million people. Do you or whatever you consider to be a credible source, argue otherwise?
  • I consider increases of both total incomes and wage incomes’ purchasing powers for most families’ and reducing our population’s poverty segment by 1.3 million people, at a net expense of 1/3 percent reduction of our nation’s higher income families. as a net improvement of our nation’s economic and social wellbeing. Do you or whatever you consider to be a credible source, argue otherwise?
Can you explain what you or whatever you consider to be a credible source do argue concerning the federal minimum wage rate?
Respectfully, Supposn
 

AZrailwhale

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
864
Reaction score
855
Points
883
Location
Arizona
Geezus!

Even my teenage daughter understands what happens when min wage gets raised.
Yes

Your daughter would earn more money for college instead of providing a low wage workforce for business owners.

But never mind......You can always borrow the difference so your daughter can go to college
Happily, my teenage daughter STILL understands what happens when min wage is increased, unlike you.
If she thinks prices will go up one for one, she is wrong.
Business adapts
They adapt to increases in the costs of supplies, costs of rent, costs of advertising, tax increases...

The only thing you and your daughter thinks they can’t adapt to is wage increases.

Meanwhile, your daughter will be forced to work at a wage that won’t help her pay for college while her employer pockets more profit.
Business adapts by either raising prices or cutting headcount. It never cuts profits because they are necessary to attract the investors who pay the bills. There is a floor for cutting headcount. Eventually you get to the point where the remaining employees can’t do the absolutely necessary work no matter how many shortcuts they take, or how much maintenance they defer. That’s when the company either raises prices or goes out of business. If a business can’t make money it closes. Business aren’t job creators, they are wealth creators.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
217,293
Reaction score
43,526
Points
2,190
That’s when the company either raises prices or goes out of business.
If a company cannot stay in business without demanding that Government support a marginally paid workforce, they do not deserve to stay in business
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
63,332
Reaction score
11,946
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
That’s when the company either raises prices or goes out of business.
If a company cannot stay in business without demanding that Government support a marginally paid workforce, they do not deserve to stay in business
Exactly! Screw all their low-skilled workers.
The world always needs crack dealers and thieves, eh?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
63,118
Reaction score
2,894
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
That’s when the company either raises prices or goes out of business.
If a company cannot stay in business without demanding that Government support a marginally paid workforce, they do not deserve to stay in business
Exactly! Screw all their low-skilled workers.
The world always needs crack dealers and thieves, eh?
A red herring from the right wing. Ran out of valid argument arguments?

UC on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States is all the equality necessary to optimize and more automatically stabilize our economy.
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,002
Reaction score
115
Points
85
... UC on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States is all the equality necessary to optimize and more automatically stabilize our economy.
Throughout the entire world, no government accepts “at will” as an individual’s or their family’s manner of qualification for unemployment or any other government or employer provided financial benefits.

I’m unaware of any credible proposal to enact such a legal law or regulation. I am aware of one individual person that has in their own mind conceived of such a legal enactment. But that individual’s conception is apparently unique in this world. Respectfully, Supposn
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
63,118
Reaction score
2,894
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Throughout the entire world, no government accepts “at will” as an individual’s or their family’s manner of qualification for unemployment or any other government or employer provided financial benefits.
Means nothing. Right wingers in the US were willing to levy war against the Union to keep slavery instead of insist on eminent domain. There is no appeal to ignorance of the laws.
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,002
Reaction score
115
Points
85
Throughout the entire world, no government accepts “at will” as an individual’s or their family’s manner of qualification for unemployment or any other government or employer provided financial benefits.
Means nothing. Right wingers in the US were willing to levy war against the Union to keep slavery instead of insist on eminent domain. There is no appeal to ignorance of the laws.
DanielPalos, you’re ambitious. You want to rewrite the laws of all 50 USA states and our nation’s history. USA’s Civil War issue was not slavery. President Lincoln would agree to retaining both free and slave states within our nation. Eminent domain was not the issue.
The issue was the Confederate States insisting upon their rights to secede from our United State of America.

There are many now who would not be averse to USA being divided into the United Trump, the United Tea Party, and the United Liberal States of America.
Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
63,118
Reaction score
2,894
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Throughout the entire world, no government accepts “at will” as an individual’s or their family’s manner of qualification for unemployment or any other government or employer provided financial benefits.
Means nothing. Right wingers in the US were willing to levy war against the Union to keep slavery instead of insist on eminent domain. There is no appeal to ignorance of the laws.
DanielPalos, you’re ambitious. You want to rewrite the laws of all 50 USA states and our nation’s history. USA’s Civil War issue was not slavery. President Lincoln would agree to retaining both free and slave states within our nation. Eminent domain was not the issue.
The issue was the Confederate States insisting upon their rights to secede from our United State of America.

There are many now who would not be averse to USA being divided into the United Trump, the United Tea Party, and the United Liberal States of America.
Respectfully, Supposn
Laws that are repugnant to our Constitutions need to be abolished; it really is that simple.
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,002
Reaction score
115
Points
85
Laws that are repugnant to our Constitutions need to be abolished; it really is that simple.
DanielPalos, regardless of your simple opinions, the U.S. Supreme Court is the final determination of laws’ federal constitutionality. If its OK with them, it’s constitutional.
Respectfully, Supposn
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top