"Living Wage" for Everyone?

[Brain357]

There was no significant cost to businesses that dont hire min wage workers, true. But for ones who do the results are the same: reduced hours, layoffs, higher prices, closure of business.
Why would prices go down when costs go up? That makes no sense at all.
As usual Billy you spew a bunch of crap you cannot possibly support because you dont know the first thing about this.

Unemployment has never gone up with a min wage increase.

But wait a minute, I thought the whole thrust of the argument for increasing minimum wage is that it's actually been going down (in real buy power). What gives?

What does that have to do with min wage increases not increasing unemployment?

It has to do with the fact that actual increases to the minimum wage have been so rare as to be statistically insignificant. There's no real data to draw from.

Wrong.
It was raised in :
1991
1996
1997
2007
2008 and
2009

None of those increases provided the "magic bullet to prosperity" that libs offer for raising it. And the usual excuse given for that will, as with all failed liberal programs, we didnt do it enough.

They didn't cause job losses.

 

[dblack]

Unemployment has never gone up with a min wage increase.

But wait a minute, I thought the whole thrust of the argument for increasing minimum wage is that it's actually been going down (in real buy power). What gives?

What does that have to do with min wage increases not increasing unemployment?

It has to do with the fact that actual increases to the minimum wage have been so rare as to be statistically insignificant. There's no real data to draw from.

Wrong.
It was raised in :
1991
1996
1997
2007
2008 and
2009

None of those increases provided the "magic bullet to prosperity" that libs offer for raising it. And the usual excuse given for that will, as with all failed liberal programs, we didnt do it enough.

They didn't cause job losses.

Short terms bumps don't establish any real evidence. Overall, minimum wage is worth 20% less now than it was in 1979. And in any case, it's so low as to be negligible. I saw let's burn the ****** down. Raise the minimum to $25.00/hr and call these idiots' bluff. Shouldn't take more than a week or two for them to recant.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You can say tough shit all you like. But if minimum wage were to increase to $15.00 tomorrow, all those workers would be demanding more money. Tough ship?

Okay, so you are an employer. Minimum wage goes to $15.00 per hour, so now your current $15.00 per hour employees are demanding $20.00 per hour. What are your choices?

You can tell your employees that have been with the company the last ten years to take a hike, and then hire new minimum wage employees that know nothing about your company, nothing about your operations, nothing about the positions you need them for. You'll have to train all of these people to do the jobs your experienced employees used to do. This could take years. And after you trained them, they too will be asking for more money.

Or you increase your current employees wages and keep that experience and dedication. It's really a brainless decision. Employers will be forced to keep their current employees and take the financial loss.

I don't understand how you people dismiss the demand side of economics. Any initial cost to business from raising wages would be regained by the boost to business from bigger paychecks.

What bigger paychecks, from the employees? How would business benefit from that?

When Commie Care went into full force, my employer dropped our healthcare coverage. Unfortunately, the geniuses that created this mess never put in a clause where the employer could pay you cash for the benefits he canceled. All he could do is increase your pay rate which my employer did.

He was paying $415.00 a month for my coverage, but, he couldn't give me a separate check for the $415.00. He had to figure what the extra costs were for matching my SS contributions, matching my Medicare contributions, higher unemployment tax, higher workman's compensation tax and so on.

With all the Deductions before what I got taxed on, I ended up with $275.00 of that money and again, I paid tax on that because it was part of my gross.

When your employer gives you a raise, all you see is the raise part. You don't see all the additional expenses he has to payout for all the benefits and costs associated with that raise. Imagine what an employer would have to pay on top of the new $15.00 per hour.

Your employer must have overlooked this:

Q1: My employer offers employees cash to reimburse the purchase of an individual market policy. Does this arrangement comply with the market reforms?

No. If the employer uses an arrangement that provides cash reimbursement for the purchase of an individual market policy, the employer's payment arrangement is part of a plan, fund, or other arrangement established or maintained for the purpose of providing medical care to employees, without regard to whether the employer treats the money as pre-tax or post-tax to the employee. Therefore, the arrangement is group health plan coverage within the meaning of Code section 9832(a), Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) section 733(a) and PHS Act section 2791(a), and is subject to the market reform provisions of the Affordable Care Act applicable to group health plans. Such employer health care arrangements cannot be integrated with individual market policies to satisfy the market reforms and, therefore, will violate PHS Act sections 2711 and 2713, among other provisions, which can trigger penalties such as excise taxes under section 4980D of the Code. Under the Departments' prior published guidance, the cash arrangement fails to comply with the market reforms because the cash payment cannot be integrated with an individual market policy.(6)

Frequently Asked Questions - The Affordable Care Act Implementation Part XXII

That's exactly what I pointed out. You can't just give the cash you used for healthcare to the employee. It's subject to penalties and taxation. That's why the only thing you can do is increase pay rates.

You stated that your employer canceled your healthcare and gave you monies in lieu of the healthcare.

No, I said that the only way to transfer that money to us (legally) was to increase our pay scale just like he gave us a raise. If he could just write a check to us for our healthcare insurance with no taxes or deductions involved, Commie Care would be much more successful today.

You have to understand that part of this nonsense was for employers to drop coverage, that way when we buy our healthcare, it's "after tax" money. When the employer provided the coverage, it was before tax money. So if it's not bad enough we lose coverage, we also take the loss on taxes as well. Plus the fact that part of the plan was to increase the minimum cost before you could write any medical expenses off. My tax preparer told me the new threshold is now $10,000. That's a hell of a lot of money to spend on healthcare.

 

[Harry Dresden]

What bigger paychecks, from the employees? How would business benefit from that?

When Commie Care went into full force, my employer dropped our healthcare coverage. Unfortunately, the geniuses that created this mess never put in a clause where the employer could pay you cash for the benefits he canceled. All he could do is increase your pay rate which my employer did.

He was paying $415.00 a month for my coverage, but, he couldn't give me a separate check for the $415.00. He had to figure what the extra costs were for matching my SS contributions, matching my Medicare contributions, higher unemployment tax, higher workman's compensation tax and so on.

With all the Deductions before what I got taxed on, I ended up with $275.00 of that money and again, I paid tax on that because it was part of my gross.

When your employer gives you a raise, all you see is the raise part. You don't see all the additional expenses he has to payout for all the benefits and costs associated with that raise. Imagine what an employer would have to pay on top of the new $15.00 per hour.

You have to look at this more broadly. I'm saying businesses across the country would benefit from it. More people would be spending more money on the market. Consumer spending accounts for 70% of the nation's economy.

and you have to look at it realistically...everyone who is at 15-20 bucks will want more money and then the people above them will want more and so on and so on...

No you're the one lacking realism. Anyone that would demand more, WOULD NOT GET MORE.

and so the disruption of the working place would begin with resentment and morale problems....i can tell you have never worked anywhere and if you have you were either management or you never were a higher wage worker....get real billy open your ******* eyes...

Morale is already at a historic low and yet productivity in this country has been up for decades. Facts matter.

you dont have any idea how the work room floor operates do you?..you must be management....

 

[OnePercenter]

I don't understand how you people dismiss the demand side of economics. Any initial cost to business from raising wages would be regained by the boost to business from bigger paychecks.

What bigger paychecks, from the employees? How would business benefit from that?

When Commie Care went into full force, my employer dropped our healthcare coverage. Unfortunately, the geniuses that created this mess never put in a clause where the employer could pay you cash for the benefits he canceled. All he could do is increase your pay rate which my employer did.

He was paying $415.00 a month for my coverage, but, he couldn't give me a separate check for the $415.00. He had to figure what the extra costs were for matching my SS contributions, matching my Medicare contributions, higher unemployment tax, higher workman's compensation tax and so on.

With all the Deductions before what I got taxed on, I ended up with $275.00 of that money and again, I paid tax on that because it was part of my gross.

When your employer gives you a raise, all you see is the raise part. You don't see all the additional expenses he has to payout for all the benefits and costs associated with that raise. Imagine what an employer would have to pay on top of the new $15.00 per hour.

Your employer must have overlooked this:

Q1: My employer offers employees cash to reimburse the purchase of an individual market policy. Does this arrangement comply with the market reforms?

No. If the employer uses an arrangement that provides cash reimbursement for the purchase of an individual market policy, the employer's payment arrangement is part of a plan, fund, or other arrangement established or maintained for the purpose of providing medical care to employees, without regard to whether the employer treats the money as pre-tax or post-tax to the employee. Therefore, the arrangement is group health plan coverage within the meaning of Code section 9832(a), Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) section 733(a) and PHS Act section 2791(a), and is subject to the market reform provisions of the Affordable Care Act applicable to group health plans. Such employer health care arrangements cannot be integrated with individual market policies to satisfy the market reforms and, therefore, will violate PHS Act sections 2711 and 2713, among other provisions, which can trigger penalties such as excise taxes under section 4980D of the Code. Under the Departments' prior published guidance, the cash arrangement fails to comply with the market reforms because the cash payment cannot be integrated with an individual market policy.(6)

Frequently Asked Questions - The Affordable Care Act Implementation Part XXII

That's exactly what I pointed out. You can't just give the cash you used for healthcare to the employee. It's subject to penalties and taxation. That's why the only thing you can do is increase pay rates.

You stated that your employer canceled your healthcare and gave you monies in lieu of the healthcare.

No, I said that the only way to transfer that money to us (legally) was to increase our pay scale just like he gave us a raise. If he could just write a check to us for our healthcare insurance with no taxes or deductions involved, Commie Care would be much more successful today.

You have to understand that part of this nonsense was for employers to drop coverage, that way when we buy our healthcare, it's "after tax" money. When the employer provided the coverage, it was before tax money. So if it's not bad enough we lose coverage, we also take the loss on taxes as well. Plus the fact that part of the plan was to increase the minimum cost before you could write any medical expenses off. My tax preparer told me the new threshold is now $10,000. That's a hell of a lot of money to spend on healthcare.

And as I provided that is illegal. So is your employer canceling your insurance.

Why don't you post the name and address of this employer. I'd be happy to turn him in.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What bigger paychecks, from the employees? How would business benefit from that?

When Commie Care went into full force, my employer dropped our healthcare coverage. Unfortunately, the geniuses that created this mess never put in a clause where the employer could pay you cash for the benefits he canceled. All he could do is increase your pay rate which my employer did.

He was paying $415.00 a month for my coverage, but, he couldn't give me a separate check for the $415.00. He had to figure what the extra costs were for matching my SS contributions, matching my Medicare contributions, higher unemployment tax, higher workman's compensation tax and so on.

With all the Deductions before what I got taxed on, I ended up with $275.00 of that money and again, I paid tax on that because it was part of my gross.

When your employer gives you a raise, all you see is the raise part. You don't see all the additional expenses he has to payout for all the benefits and costs associated with that raise. Imagine what an employer would have to pay on top of the new $15.00 per hour.

Your employer must have overlooked this:

Q1: My employer offers employees cash to reimburse the purchase of an individual market policy. Does this arrangement comply with the market reforms?

No. If the employer uses an arrangement that provides cash reimbursement for the purchase of an individual market policy, the employer's payment arrangement is part of a plan, fund, or other arrangement established or maintained for the purpose of providing medical care to employees, without regard to whether the employer treats the money as pre-tax or post-tax to the employee. Therefore, the arrangement is group health plan coverage within the meaning of Code section 9832(a), Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) section 733(a) and PHS Act section 2791(a), and is subject to the market reform provisions of the Affordable Care Act applicable to group health plans. Such employer health care arrangements cannot be integrated with individual market policies to satisfy the market reforms and, therefore, will violate PHS Act sections 2711 and 2713, among other provisions, which can trigger penalties such as excise taxes under section 4980D of the Code. Under the Departments' prior published guidance, the cash arrangement fails to comply with the market reforms because the cash payment cannot be integrated with an individual market policy.(6)

Frequently Asked Questions - The Affordable Care Act Implementation Part XXII

That's exactly what I pointed out. You can't just give the cash you used for healthcare to the employee. It's subject to penalties and taxation. That's why the only thing you can do is increase pay rates.

You stated that your employer canceled your healthcare and gave you monies in lieu of the healthcare.

No, I said that the only way to transfer that money to us (legally) was to increase our pay scale just like he gave us a raise. If he could just write a check to us for our healthcare insurance with no taxes or deductions involved, Commie Care would be much more successful today.

You have to understand that part of this nonsense was for employers to drop coverage, that way when we buy our healthcare, it's "after tax" money. When the employer provided the coverage, it was before tax money. So if it's not bad enough we lose coverage, we also take the loss on taxes as well. Plus the fact that part of the plan was to increase the minimum cost before you could write any medical expenses off. My tax preparer told me the new threshold is now $10,000. That's a hell of a lot of money to spend on healthcare.

And as I provided that is illegal. So is your employer canceling your insurance.

Why don't you post the name and address of this employer. I'd be happy to turn him in.

Turn him in for what? There is no law that employers can't drop insurance for their employees. If you have a company of 50 employees or more, you may be subject to a fine of sorts. But I work for a small business and my employer doesn't fall under any of the penalties of Commie Care. We have less than 15 employees.

 

[OnePercenter]

Your employer must have overlooked this:

Frequently Asked Questions - The Affordable Care Act Implementation Part XXII

That's exactly what I pointed out. You can't just give the cash you used for healthcare to the employee. It's subject to penalties and taxation. That's why the only thing you can do is increase pay rates.

You stated that your employer canceled your healthcare and gave you monies in lieu of the healthcare.

No, I said that the only way to transfer that money to us (legally) was to increase our pay scale just like he gave us a raise. If he could just write a check to us for our healthcare insurance with no taxes or deductions involved, Commie Care would be much more successful today.

You have to understand that part of this nonsense was for employers to drop coverage, that way when we buy our healthcare, it's "after tax" money. When the employer provided the coverage, it was before tax money. So if it's not bad enough we lose coverage, we also take the loss on taxes as well. Plus the fact that part of the plan was to increase the minimum cost before you could write any medical expenses off. My tax preparer told me the new threshold is now $10,000. That's a hell of a lot of money to spend on healthcare.

And as I provided that is illegal. So is your employer canceling your insurance.

Why don't you post the name and address of this employer. I'd be happy to turn him in.

Turn him in for what? There is no law that employers can't drop insurance for their employees. If you have a company of 50 employees or more, you may be subject to a fine of sorts. But I work for a small business and my employer doesn't fall under any of the penalties of Commie Care. We have less than 15 employees.

So what was all the 'ruckus' of getting your insurance canceled and your employer paying you in lieu of?

If he was a responsible employer (like me) he'd be paying 100% of you healthcare. My guess he doesn't care about you. I hope you work hard for him.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's exactly what I pointed out. You can't just give the cash you used for healthcare to the employee. It's subject to penalties and taxation. That's why the only thing you can do is increase pay rates.

You stated that your employer canceled your healthcare and gave you monies in lieu of the healthcare.

No, I said that the only way to transfer that money to us (legally) was to increase our pay scale just like he gave us a raise. If he could just write a check to us for our healthcare insurance with no taxes or deductions involved, Commie Care would be much more successful today.

You have to understand that part of this nonsense was for employers to drop coverage, that way when we buy our healthcare, it's "after tax" money. When the employer provided the coverage, it was before tax money. So if it's not bad enough we lose coverage, we also take the loss on taxes as well. Plus the fact that part of the plan was to increase the minimum cost before you could write any medical expenses off. My tax preparer told me the new threshold is now $10,000. That's a hell of a lot of money to spend on healthcare.

And as I provided that is illegal. So is your employer canceling your insurance.

Why don't you post the name and address of this employer. I'd be happy to turn him in.

Turn him in for what? There is no law that employers can't drop insurance for their employees. If you have a company of 50 employees or more, you may be subject to a fine of sorts. But I work for a small business and my employer doesn't fall under any of the penalties of Commie Care. We have less than 15 employees.

So what was all the 'ruckus' of getting your insurance canceled and your employer paying you in lieu of?

If he was a responsible employer (like me) he'd be paying 100% of you healthcare. My guess he doesn't care about you. I hope you work hard for him.

My employer is part of a growing trend when it comes to dropping coverage for their employees. The rates keep going up faster than they can keep up with and it was becoming a major expense. In fact my employer is on his wife's plan and has been even when he provided coverage for the employees.

The problem with my employer paying me the cash is I don't see dollar for dollar. He had to figure in the increase costs of matching our SS contributions, our Medicare contributions, our retirement plan contributions, plus all the other increases such as unemployment insurance and workman's compensation.

Then after all that, what's left gets taxed as our normal pay. If I could see dollar for dollar, I would be more than thrilled with Commie Care.

 

[BluesLegend]

Irony, where did employees get their money? OH SNAP!

From payment of government contracts to their employers. OH SNAP!

I see you failed economics and simple math.

So why don't you educamate me! I can't wait to see this!

I don't have 4 years of spare time to do that.

 

[OnePercenter]

My employer is part of a growing trend when it comes to dropping coverage for their employees. The rates keep going up faster than they can keep up with and it was becoming a major expense. In fact my employer is on his wife's plan and has been even when he provided coverage for the employees.

The problem with my employer paying me the cash is I don't see dollar for dollar. He had to figure in the increase costs of matching our SS contributions, our Medicare contributions, our retirement plan contributions, plus all the other increases such as unemployment insurance and workman's compensation.

Then after all that, what's left gets taxed as our normal pay. If I could see dollar for dollar, I would be more than thrilled with Commie Care.

Your employer is a growing trend of employers 'cheaping out' on their employees.

'Our costs?' Why would the employers side of FICA be your concern?

For 2014, take your federal tax paid ÷ total income will be your federal tax rate.

 

[OnePercenter]

Irony, where did employees get their money? OH SNAP!

From payment of government contracts to their employers. OH SNAP!

I see you failed economics and simple math.

So why don't you educamate me! I can't wait to see this!

I don't have 4 years of spare time to do that.

Because you don't know or figured out you can't deceive debating with me?

 

[The Rabbi]

Irony, where did employees get their money? OH SNAP!

From payment of government contracts to their employers. OH SNAP!

I see you failed economics and simple math.

So why don't you educamate me! I can't wait to see this!

I don't have 4 years of spare time to do that.

Because you don't know or figured out you can't deceive debating with me?

He probably figured out you are the biggest poseur on this site, virtually everything you think you know is wrong, and he'd be wasting his time even trying with such a lunkhead.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You have to look at this more broadly. I'm saying businesses across the country would benefit from it. More people would be spending more money on the market. Consumer spending accounts for 70% of the nation's economy.

Thats total bullshit. We've had 3 increases in MW and in no case was there increased spendoing
Instead what happens is busineess must either increase prices or reduce workers hours. There is no net gain for workers.

Oh Christ I'm not having this same argument with you just because you aren't mature enough to accept the answer. The rise in prices would not offset the boost to consumer spending. Over time prices would go down. Every time the min wage was raised, there was no significant cost to businesses. Look at history for Christ's sakes. This economy depends on consumer spending and right now it is shit because of low wages. Individual corporations refuse to raise wages because it is just easier for them to keep the ridiculous amount of money they already make. 3 out of 5 small businesses on the other hand support raising the minimum wage.

There was no significant cost to businesses that dont hire min wage workers, true. But for ones who do the results are the same: reduced hours, layoffs, higher prices, closure of business.
Why would prices go down when costs go up? That makes no sense at all.
As usual Billy you spew a bunch of crap you cannot possibly support because you dont know the first thing about this.

Unemployment has never gone up with a min wage increase.

But wait a minute, I thought the whole thrust of the argument for increasing minimum wage is that it's actually been going down (in real buy power). What gives?

The minimum wage has been falling for 45 years. What have been the benefits to our economy over that time period?

 

[dblack]

Thats total bullshit. We've had 3 increases in MW and in no case was there increased spendoing
Instead what happens is busineess must either increase prices or reduce workers hours. There is no net gain for workers.

Oh Christ I'm not having this same argument with you just because you aren't mature enough to accept the answer. The rise in prices would not offset the boost to consumer spending. Over time prices would go down. Every time the min wage was raised, there was no significant cost to businesses. Look at history for Christ's sakes. This economy depends on consumer spending and right now it is shit because of low wages. Individual corporations refuse to raise wages because it is just easier for them to keep the ridiculous amount of money they already make. 3 out of 5 small businesses on the other hand support raising the minimum wage.

There was no significant cost to businesses that dont hire min wage workers, true. But for ones who do the results are the same: reduced hours, layoffs, higher prices, closure of business.
Why would prices go down when costs go up? That makes no sense at all.
As usual Billy you spew a bunch of crap you cannot possibly support because you dont know the first thing about this.

Unemployment has never gone up with a min wage increase.

But wait a minute, I thought the whole thrust of the argument for increasing minimum wage is that it's actually been going down (in real buy power). What gives?

The minimum wage has been falling for 45 years. What have been the benefits to our economy over that time period?

negligible.

 

[RKMBrown]

Thats total bullshit. We've had 3 increases in MW and in no case was there increased spendoing
Instead what happens is busineess must either increase prices or reduce workers hours. There is no net gain for workers.

Oh Christ I'm not having this same argument with you just because you aren't mature enough to accept the answer. The rise in prices would not offset the boost to consumer spending. Over time prices would go down. Every time the min wage was raised, there was no significant cost to businesses. Look at history for Christ's sakes. This economy depends on consumer spending and right now it is shit because of low wages. Individual corporations refuse to raise wages because it is just easier for them to keep the ridiculous amount of money they already make. 3 out of 5 small businesses on the other hand support raising the minimum wage.

There was no significant cost to businesses that dont hire min wage workers, true. But for ones who do the results are the same: reduced hours, layoffs, higher prices, closure of business.
Why would prices go down when costs go up? That makes no sense at all.
As usual Billy you spew a bunch of crap you cannot possibly support because you dont know the first thing about this.

Unemployment has never gone up with a min wage increase.

But wait a minute, I thought the whole thrust of the argument for increasing minimum wage is that it's actually been going down (in real buy power). What gives?

The minimum wage has been falling for 45 years. What have been the benefits to our economy over that time period?

Liar.

 

[The Rabbi]

Thats total bullshit. We've had 3 increases in MW and in no case was there increased spendoing
Instead what happens is busineess must either increase prices or reduce workers hours. There is no net gain for workers.

Oh Christ I'm not having this same argument with you just because you aren't mature enough to accept the answer. The rise in prices would not offset the boost to consumer spending. Over time prices would go down. Every time the min wage was raised, there was no significant cost to businesses. Look at history for Christ's sakes. This economy depends on consumer spending and right now it is shit because of low wages. Individual corporations refuse to raise wages because it is just easier for them to keep the ridiculous amount of money they already make. 3 out of 5 small businesses on the other hand support raising the minimum wage.

There was no significant cost to businesses that dont hire min wage workers, true. But for ones who do the results are the same: reduced hours, layoffs, higher prices, closure of business.
Why would prices go down when costs go up? That makes no sense at all.
As usual Billy you spew a bunch of crap you cannot possibly support because you dont know the first thing about this.

Unemployment has never gone up with a min wage increase.

But wait a minute, I thought the whole thrust of the argument for increasing minimum wage is that it's actually been going down (in real buy power). What gives?

The minimum wage has been falling for 45 years. What have been the benefits to our economy over that time period?

WOw. Someone needs to figure out the difference between rising and falling.

 

[RKMBrown]

He probably meant adjusted for inflation. But even then he's still lying.

 

[OnePercenter]

He probably meant adjusted for inflation. But even then he's still lying.

No. Using CPI inflation 1970 - 2015, minimum wage should be $9.28/hr. The problem with using CPI as a measure of inflation, Reagan screwed with it.

Prior to 1983, CPI used ACTUAL numbers. Reagan changed it to a GUESS.

The Major Problem With CPI And How It Hurts The Economy

If minimum wage followed 1970 - 2015:

The Big Mac, it would be $19.20/hr.

The Ford F350, it would be $47.60/hr.

Rent, it would be $32.30/hr.

 

[RKMBrown]

He probably meant adjusted for inflation. But even then he's still lying.

No. Using CPI inflation 1970 - 2015, minimum wage should be $9.28/hr. The problem with using CPI as a measure of inflation, Reagan screwed with it.

Prior to 1983, CPI used ACTUAL numbers. Reagan changed it to a GUESS.

The Major Problem With CPI And How It Hurts The Economy

If minimum wage followed 1970 - 2015:

The Big Mac, it would be $19.20/hr.

The Ford F350, it would be $47.60/hr.

Rent, it would be $32.30/hr.

huh? dude you've said some pretty dumb things in the past but this takes the cake.

 

[American_Jihad]

The Wage Equality Deception
The veiled attack on the middle class.
December 29, 2015
Michael Cutler

Hillary Clinton and her fellow Democratic Party candidates for the Presidency frequently espouse their goal of achieving “Wage Equality.” Invariably their exhortations about the need to address wage inequality are greeted by wild cheers. I suspect that if their enthusiastic audiences stopped to give this call to action a bit of thought, their cheers would be replaced by jeers.

However, not unlike stampeding livestock, once a bunch of people charge in a particular direction, just about everyone else blindly joins that charge.

The call for addressing wage inequality generally begins by linking wage inequality to the need to increase the minimum wage. For whatever reason, the Obama administration established the goal of creating a federal minimum wage of $10.10 per hour. Fast food workers have taken to the streets to demand a minimum wage of $15.00 per hour.

I certainly understand the appeal for America's working poor and those sympathetic to their plight to favor raising the minimum wage. I know that there are those who disagree about this concept but today we will not discuss the wisdom of raising the minimum wage, we will only consider just how bogus the calls for linking the increase in the minimum wage to achieving “wage equality” is and what this really means for middle class American workers, their families and the American Dream.

A worker who is paid $10.10 per hour would earn just over $21,000.00 per year. If raising the minimum wage would help eliminate wage equality, someone needs to ask who these workers will be made equal to. An hourly wage of $15.00 per hour would yield an annual wage of $31,200.00. Again someone needs to ask who these workers will be made equal to.

Hillary Clinton generally begins her demand for wage equality by talking about the billionaires and how unfair it is for these “Masters of the Economic Universe” to have amassed so much money while millions of Americans are living below the poverty line.

To be fair, I have no use for Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg. Both of these billionaires have called for greatly increasing the number of H-1B visas for high tech foreign workers and have done everything they can to undermine the careers and futures of Americans. However, Hillary's hypocrisy is never discussed by the media.

On February 13, 2014 the Clinton Foundation website posted a press release with a noteworthy title, “Clinton Foundation And Gates Foundation Partner To Measure Global Progress For Women And Girls.”

...

The problem is that this is not good news but bad news. While Gates and company continue to prosper, the middle class is being dismantled.

The December 9, 2015 L.A. Times headline blared the stark reality of the consequences of this onslaught by foreign workers, “Middle-class families, pillar of the American dream, are no longer in the majority, study finds.”

Furthermore, on April 19, 2013, the World Bank's Migration and Remittances Unit, Development Prospects Group published a report, “Migration and Development Brief 20” that predicted that enactment of immigration reform legislation in the United States would increase the remittances flowing from the United States to the countries of origin for the rapidly growing number of foreign workers.

At a time when our nation's deficit continues to soar to “infinity and beyond” it is hardly encouraging to imagine still more money being wired out of our country, further increasing our national debt and hobbling our nation's already struggling economy.

Apparently according to Greenspan, Schumer, Clinton and their cohorts, wage inequality will remain a “problem” as long as middle class workers earn more than their lesser educated and lesser skilled fellow Americans.

Those who cheer the concept of “Wage equality” need to be careful about what they wish for.

The Wage Equality Deception