Minimum wage rate and labors’ market prices.

OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
102
Points
85
the federal minimum wage rate reduces the incidences and extent of poverty among USA’s working-poor
... But it doesn't. Factually wrong. ...
Andylusion, refer to this linked post's entire text:
ToddsterPatriot, ... to the extent of its purchasing power, the federal minimum wage rate reduces the incidences and extent of poverty among USA’s working-poor. ...
Although minimum wage rates are directly or almost directly beneficial to low-wage rate earning employees and their dependents, the minimum rate’s also net beneficial to our nation’s aggregate wage-earning families and our economic and social wellbeing.
Beneficiaries of unemployment insurance and their families are not detrimentally affected by the minimum rate laws.
Respectfully Supposn
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,081
Reaction score
5,537
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
the federal minimum wage rate reduces the incidences and extent of poverty among USA’s working-poor
... But it doesn't. Factually wrong. ...
Andylusion, refer to this linked post's entire text:
ToddsterPatriot, ... to the extent of its purchasing power, the federal minimum wage rate reduces the incidences and extent of poverty among USA’s working-poor. ...
Although minimum wage rates are directly or almost directly beneficial to low-wage rate earning employees and their dependents, the minimum rate’s also net beneficial to our nation’s aggregate wage-earning families and our economic and social wellbeing.
Beneficiaries of unemployment insurance and their families are not detrimentally affected by the minimum rate laws.
Respectfully Supposn
You are wrong. It does not benefit people, when it causes them to lose their jobs.

Again, how do you explain Greece then? They had a minimum wage indexed to inflation, and the result was an economic crash, with higher and higher unemployment.

In fact, unemployment did not even start to decline in Greece, until the government not only repealed the automatic increases indexed to inflation, but they actually cut the minimum wage.

Look at Germany. Germany was the leading economy of Europe for decades. They never had a minimum wage until 2015.

How did that work, if you need a minimum wage for the the well being of their citizens? Why was Germany without a minimum wage for 50 plus years, the leading economy in all of Europe, over other countries that had minimum wages?


A new paper by IZA Institute of Labor Economics provides a clear literature review on the effects so far.

  • Unsurprisingly, hourly wages have increased at the bottom of the income distribution, though there is little evidence of a ripple effect further up.
  • Most studies find a small but negative effect on overall employment (up to 260,000 fewer jobs), driven by reduced hiring (not layoffs) and a reduction of casual and atypical employment.
  • All studies that assessed it find a negative effect on contractual hours.
  • As a result, although hourly wages increased, the reduction in hours meant gross monthly earnings does not appear to have increased much for low‐paid employees.
  • Since gross monthly earnings have not substantially increased, and those earning minimum wage are often not from the poorest households, the policy hasn’t seemingly reduced the risk of being in poverty.

Every single research paper that comprehensively studies the effects of the minimum wage, finds almost no benefit, and clear negative effects.

There is no counter example.

You can keep repeating your false claims, and I'll keep repeating the hard facts. Facts trumps your opinion.

You are respectfully wrong, Supposn.
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
102
Points
85
if minimum wage goes up those who receive it pay more tax and those unemployed by it ,because they are not worth the minimum wage, require more welfare and policing. Thus there is no net benefit.
EdwardBaiamonte, you’re correct to assume minimum wage rate’s are less enforceable and sustainable without the existing unemployment insurance. When fully considering all U.S. governments’ public assistance and unemployment insurance expenditures, the federal minimum wage rate continues to positively contribute to USA’s net economic and social wellbeing.
Respectfully, Supposn
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,081
Reaction score
5,537
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
if minimum wage goes up those who receive it pay more tax and those unemployed by it ,because they are not worth the minimum wage, require more welfare and policing. Thus there is no net benefit.
EdwardBaiamonte, you’re correct to assume minimum wage rate’s are less enforceable and sustainable without the existing unemployment insurance. When fully considering all U.S. governments’ public assistance and unemployment insurance expenditures, the federal minimum wage rate continues to positively contribute to USA’s net economic and social wellbeing.
Respectfully, Supposn
But again, the facts prove it does not, as I have posted proof of multiple times now.
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
102
Points
85
... you are wrong. It does not benefit people, when it causes them to lose their jobs. ...

... Look at Germany. ... Every single research paper that comprehensively studies the effects of the minimum wage, finds almost no benefit, and clear negative effects.
There is no counter example. ...
Andylusion, I spent some time reading and considering the CBO reports, before responding to mentions of their reports.
We can question methods of collecting, selecting and how they interrelate facts and statistics the of the published reports, without questioning the sincerity of those doing the reporting.
[CBO’s motives are generally considered as non-partisan while many other organizations motives are considered by many to be more partisan; (for examples, the Economic Policy Institute, CATO, and the Heritage Foundation are among those organizations accused by too many knowledgeable people as having their own political agendas].

There may be substantial similarities between USA’s and Germany’s handling of minimum wage rates, and the organizations your link refer to may all be nonpartisan, I’m not that familiar with Germany; I’m not as aware or confident in the nonpartisanship of organizations other than the CBO, which have published reports regarding the federal minimum wage rate.

I’ll try to continue responding to posts referring to CBO reports regarding the federal minimum wage rate. Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
62,261
Reaction score
11,247
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
ToddsterPatriot, I did not state eliminating the minimum wage rate would increase the number of people not employed.

I did state that it would increase low-wage rate jobs, which consequentially is an increase of employed low-wage rate workers (who will all be earning wages of drastically poor purchasing power). It would not reduce but possibly increase the rate of unemployment among USA’s low-wage rate workers, and eliminating the minimum rate would be of net detriment to USA’s economic and social wellbeing.

I did state to the extent of its purchasing power, the federal minimum wage rate reduces the incidences and extent of poverty among USA’s working-poor.
... I believe my arguments and evidence I posted in this thread certainly satisfy civil courts’ standard of a “preponderance of truth”, if not beyond a reasonable doubt. There little within discussions of economic and political matters that are ever proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

It’s my opinion that I have, and it’s your opinion that I have not “made my case”. …
Respectfully Supposn
I did not state eliminating the minimum wage rate would increase the number of people not employed.

Thank goodness.

I did state that it would increase low-wage rate jobs, which consequentially is an increase of employed low-wage rate workers

Yes, you stated one of the benefits, thanks.

It would not reduce but possibly increase the rate of unemployment among USA’s low-wage rate workers,

More total employed is a good thing. Why is the rate a problem?

and eliminating the minimum rate would be of net detriment to USA’s economic and social wellbeing.

More employment is not a net detriment.

I did state to the extent of its purchasing power, the federal minimum wage rate reduces the incidences and extent of poverty among USA’s working-poor.

Remind me, is this another of your claims that you can't prove?

I believe my arguments and evidence I posted in this thread certainly satisfy civil courts’ standard of a “preponderance of truth”

Yes, your lack of proof and self-contradiction are compelling.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
60,700
Reaction score
2,421
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
my life’s experiences and observation regarding this matter has led to my confidence that figure would be one of less than $3.50 per hour, ...

Why? Fast food restaurants in my area were having a hard time filling positions while offering starting salaries nearly 40% over the minimum wage. Why would they decide to cut their offered wage to $3.50 or less?
Do you not understand supply and demand? The demand for $3.50 workers may be very high, but the supply isn't.
ToddsterPatriot, there are now, (when the federal minimum wage rate’s $725 per hour), many people who are willing to accept $4 or $3 or less per hour, but it’s illegal to pay less than the applicably legal rate; the applicably legally enforced minimum rate’s effectively all markets’ minimum rates in the USA.

If fast food restaurants cannot fill positions, there’s a scarcity of applicants that are acceptable to employers and willing to work for the wage rates being offered.

In most, if not all USA labor markets, fast food restaurants can attract applicants willing to accept the minimum rate, but the employers do not find such applicants to be acceptable. There are kids in Brooklyn, that would accept living in tents within the Hamptons, if Long Island Hampton employers were willing to pay the market prices needed to lure acceptable laborers from Brooklyn.
Respectfully, Supposn
many people who are willing to accept $4 or $3 or less per hour,

How many? Why do you suppose that is?
Anyone who only needs the income available on a part-time basis; something convenient and close to home is usually better. But, how would that person be better off Having to work for less than purchasing power parity regardless of the rate of inflation? In other words and in a different example depending on the accounting method, part-time employment could be considered a percentage of otherwise full time employment considered customary and usual for any given market segment; the equivalent to three or four dollars an hour if that individual were otherwise employed on a full time basis for that actual dollar amount.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed could mean no need for statutory minimum wage laws since the potential labor market participant would not be required to work in an at-will employment State. No minimum wage could mean a few hours of simple tasks for the hourly amount. If someone only needs to work a few hours for extra-money they may be in a better position to negotiate other intangibles such as convenient hours, any potential fringe benefits that may be available, etc.
But, how would that person be better off Having to work for less than purchasing power parity regardless of the rate of inflation?

Working for some wages earns you more money than not working for no wages.

Unemployment compensation for.....

Sitting on your ass and never working......not gonna happen.
You need more than appeals to ignorance of the laws and appeals to emotion to convince me.

Working for some wages is not any better than working for some profit for any Good capitalist, only for any already Rich capitalist.

20% of small businesses fail in their first year, 30% of small business fail in their second year, and 50% of small businesses fail after five years in business. Finally, 70% of small business owners fail in their 10th year in business.--https://www.national.biz/2019-small-business-failure-rate-startup-statistics-industry/

Unemployment compensation as a public policy and social safety net functions as automatic stabilizer for our economy. Ensuring more full employment of capital resources engendering more participation in our market based economy is self-evident proof for a positive multiplier and an Institutional basis for wages outpacing inflation.

And, there is no unemployment under truer forms of Capitalism, only underpayment. Market based arbitrage is a function of a market based economy.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
60,700
Reaction score
2,421
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
We should be raising the minimum wage to generate more tax revenue anyway.
if minimum wage goes up those who receive it pay more tax and those unemployed by it ,because they are not worth the minimum wage, require more welfare and policing. Thus there is no net benefit.
A cost of living increase; and, it is a self-evident truth as to why wages need to outpace inflation, Regardless. Unemployment compensation could be improved to even solve simple poverty and act as an automatic stabilizer for our economy.

Raising the minimum wage could raise several times more tax revenue than our current minimum wage does now.

The current minimum wage at 7.25 per hour raises around 194 dollars in federal income tax revenue.

A 15 dollar an hour minimum wage raises around 1,852 dollars in federal income tax revenue. Nearly ten times more revenue than our current minimum wage at 7.25 does now.

Increasing purchasing power for Labor is a simple cost of living adjustment for wages not keeping up with inflation.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
62,261
Reaction score
11,247
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
my life’s experiences and observation regarding this matter has led to my confidence that figure would be one of less than $3.50 per hour, ...

Why? Fast food restaurants in my area were having a hard time filling positions while offering starting salaries nearly 40% over the minimum wage. Why would they decide to cut their offered wage to $3.50 or less?
Do you not understand supply and demand? The demand for $3.50 workers may be very high, but the supply isn't.
ToddsterPatriot, there are now, (when the federal minimum wage rate’s $725 per hour), many people who are willing to accept $4 or $3 or less per hour, but it’s illegal to pay less than the applicably legal rate; the applicably legally enforced minimum rate’s effectively all markets’ minimum rates in the USA.

If fast food restaurants cannot fill positions, there’s a scarcity of applicants that are acceptable to employers and willing to work for the wage rates being offered.

In most, if not all USA labor markets, fast food restaurants can attract applicants willing to accept the minimum rate, but the employers do not find such applicants to be acceptable. There are kids in Brooklyn, that would accept living in tents within the Hamptons, if Long Island Hampton employers were willing to pay the market prices needed to lure acceptable laborers from Brooklyn.
Respectfully, Supposn
many people who are willing to accept $4 or $3 or less per hour,

How many? Why do you suppose that is?
Anyone who only needs the income available on a part-time basis; something convenient and close to home is usually better. But, how would that person be better off Having to work for less than purchasing power parity regardless of the rate of inflation? In other words and in a different example depending on the accounting method, part-time employment could be considered a percentage of otherwise full time employment considered customary and usual for any given market segment; the equivalent to three or four dollars an hour if that individual were otherwise employed on a full time basis for that actual dollar amount.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed could mean no need for statutory minimum wage laws since the potential labor market participant would not be required to work in an at-will employment State. No minimum wage could mean a few hours of simple tasks for the hourly amount. If someone only needs to work a few hours for extra-money they may be in a better position to negotiate other intangibles such as convenient hours, any potential fringe benefits that may be available, etc.
But, how would that person be better off Having to work for less than purchasing power parity regardless of the rate of inflation?

Working for some wages earns you more money than not working for no wages.

Unemployment compensation for.....

Sitting on your ass and never working......not gonna happen.
You need more than appeals to ignorance of the laws and appeals to emotion to convince me.

Working for some wages is not any better than working for some profit for any Good capitalist, only for any already Rich capitalist.

20% of small businesses fail in their first year, 30% of small business fail in their second year, and 50% of small businesses fail after five years in business. Finally, 70% of small business owners fail in their 10th year in business.--https://www.national.biz/2019-small-business-failure-rate-startup-statistics-industry/

Unemployment compensation as a public policy and social safety net functions as automatic stabilizer for our economy. Ensuring more full employment of capital resources engendering more participation in our market based economy is self-evident proof for a positive multiplier and an Institutional basis for wages outpacing inflation.

And, there is no unemployment under truer forms of Capitalism, only underpayment. Market based arbitrage is a function of a market based economy.
Unemployment compensation as a public policy and social safety net functions as automatic stabilizer for our economy.

Unemployment compensation for unemployed workers during a downturn is a stabilizer.
Unemployment compensation for never employed workers, all the time, is a destabilizer.

Ensuring more full employment of capital resources engendering more participation in our market based economy is self-evident proof for a positive multiplier

You're wasting resources to ensure less employment.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
60,700
Reaction score
2,421
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
my life’s experiences and observation regarding this matter has led to my confidence that figure would be one of less than $3.50 per hour, ...

Why? Fast food restaurants in my area were having a hard time filling positions while offering starting salaries nearly 40% over the minimum wage. Why would they decide to cut their offered wage to $3.50 or less?
Do you not understand supply and demand? The demand for $3.50 workers may be very high, but the supply isn't.
ToddsterPatriot, there are now, (when the federal minimum wage rate’s $725 per hour), many people who are willing to accept $4 or $3 or less per hour, but it’s illegal to pay less than the applicably legal rate; the applicably legally enforced minimum rate’s effectively all markets’ minimum rates in the USA.

If fast food restaurants cannot fill positions, there’s a scarcity of applicants that are acceptable to employers and willing to work for the wage rates being offered.

In most, if not all USA labor markets, fast food restaurants can attract applicants willing to accept the minimum rate, but the employers do not find such applicants to be acceptable. There are kids in Brooklyn, that would accept living in tents within the Hamptons, if Long Island Hampton employers were willing to pay the market prices needed to lure acceptable laborers from Brooklyn.
Respectfully, Supposn
many people who are willing to accept $4 or $3 or less per hour,

How many? Why do you suppose that is?
Anyone who only needs the income available on a part-time basis; something convenient and close to home is usually better. But, how would that person be better off Having to work for less than purchasing power parity regardless of the rate of inflation? In other words and in a different example depending on the accounting method, part-time employment could be considered a percentage of otherwise full time employment considered customary and usual for any given market segment; the equivalent to three or four dollars an hour if that individual were otherwise employed on a full time basis for that actual dollar amount.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed could mean no need for statutory minimum wage laws since the potential labor market participant would not be required to work in an at-will employment State. No minimum wage could mean a few hours of simple tasks for the hourly amount. If someone only needs to work a few hours for extra-money they may be in a better position to negotiate other intangibles such as convenient hours, any potential fringe benefits that may be available, etc.
But, how would that person be better off Having to work for less than purchasing power parity regardless of the rate of inflation?

Working for some wages earns you more money than not working for no wages.

Unemployment compensation for.....

Sitting on your ass and never working......not gonna happen.
You need more than appeals to ignorance of the laws and appeals to emotion to convince me.

Working for some wages is not any better than working for some profit for any Good capitalist, only for any already Rich capitalist.

20% of small businesses fail in their first year, 30% of small business fail in their second year, and 50% of small businesses fail after five years in business. Finally, 70% of small business owners fail in their 10th year in business.--https://www.national.biz/2019-small-business-failure-rate-startup-statistics-industry/

Unemployment compensation as a public policy and social safety net functions as automatic stabilizer for our economy. Ensuring more full employment of capital resources engendering more participation in our market based economy is self-evident proof for a positive multiplier and an Institutional basis for wages outpacing inflation.

And, there is no unemployment under truer forms of Capitalism, only underpayment. Market based arbitrage is a function of a market based economy.
Unemployment compensation as a public policy and social safety net functions as automatic stabilizer for our economy.

Unemployment compensation for unemployed workers during a downturn is a stabilizer.
Unemployment compensation for never employed workers, all the time, is a destabilizer.

Ensuring more full employment of capital resources engendering more participation in our market based economy is self-evident proof for a positive multiplier

You're wasting resources to ensure less employment.
How is it a de-stabilizer? You need to explain that line of reasoning to convince me. An automatic stabilizer, is automatic, regardless.

That is not how economics works. A positive multiplier means a "boom phase" of Capitalism.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
62,261
Reaction score
11,247
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
How is it a de-stabilizer?
How is paying unemployment to someone who never worked......a stabilizer?

Economic stabilizer, any of the institutions and practices in an economy that serve to reduce fluctuations in the business cycle through offsetting effects on the amounts of income available for spending (disposable income). The most important automatic stabilizers include unemployment compensation and other transfer payment programs, farm price supports, and family and corporate savings.


How does paying someone to never work......ensuring more full employment of capital resources?

You need to explain that line of reasoning to convince me.

You're beyond reasoning. It's a waste of time to try.
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
102
Points
85
ToddsterPatriot, I did not state eliminating the minimum wage rate would increase the number of people not employed. …
… I did state that it would increase low-wage rate jobs, which consequentially is an increase of employed low-wage rate workers

[also] It would not reduce but possibly increase the rate of unemployment among USA’s low-wage rate workers, …

[ToddsterPatriot’s responses were] …. More
total employed is a good thing. Why is the rate a problem? … More employment is not a net detriment. …
//////////////////
ToddsterPatriot, if USA's minimum wage rate laws were eliminated. due to the consequential increased rate of unemployment among low-wage rate workers, and the reduction of their purchasing power when they are employed, and the increase of incidences and extents of poverty among the working-poor, and to the extent that lesser purchasing power can possibly ad will eventually sometimes spread beyond the lowest 20th percentile of USA employees wages and rates, eliminating USA’s minimum wage rates would be drastically detrimental to our economic and social wellbeing.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

ToddsterPatriot, I did state to the extent of its purchasing power, the federal minimum wage rate reduces the incidences and extent of poverty among USA’s working-poor. … I believe my arguments and evidence I posted in this thread certainly satisfy civil courts’ standard of a “preponderance of truth”.

[ToddsterPatriot’s responses were] … Remind me, is this, [i.e. these] another of your claims that you can't prove? … your lack of proof and self-contradiction are compelling.
/////////////////
ToddsterPatriot, it’s my opinion that I have, and you haven’t made your “case”;
it’s your opinion that I haven’t, and you have made your "case”. Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
62,261
Reaction score
11,247
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
ToddsterPatriot, if USA's minimum wage rate laws were eliminated. due to the consequential increased rate of unemployment among low-wage rate workers,
It would reduce the number of unemployed. As you admitted here......

I did not state eliminating the minimum wage rate would increase the number of people not employed.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,081
Reaction score
5,537
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
... you are wrong. It does not benefit people, when it causes them to lose their jobs. ...

... Look at Germany. ... Every single research paper that comprehensively studies the effects of the minimum wage, finds almost no benefit, and clear negative effects.
There is no counter example. ...
Andylusion, I spent some time reading and considering the CBO reports, before responding to mentions of their reports.
We can question methods of collecting, selecting and how they interrelate facts and statistics the of the published reports, without questioning the sincerity of those doing the reporting.
[CBO’s motives are generally considered as non-partisan while many other organizations motives are considered by many to be more partisan; (for examples, the Economic Policy Institute, CATO, and the Heritage Foundation are among those organizations accused by too many knowledgeable people as having their own political agendas].

There may be substantial similarities between USA’s and Germany’s handling of minimum wage rates, and the organizations your link refer to may all be nonpartisan, I’m not that familiar with Germany; I’m not as aware or confident in the nonpartisanship of organizations other than the CBO, which have published reports regarding the federal minimum wage rate.

I’ll try to continue responding to posts referring to CBO reports regarding the federal minimum wage rate. Respectfully, Supposn
So you are taking one CBO report, and saying that one single report is better than literally dozens on dozens of reports to the contrary?

One report.... is to be taking as divine over DOZENS that contradict it?

No. What that makes you, is unintentionally a bigot. You are saying everyone else on the entire planet is wrong, but my source is right.

You sound like Muslims with the Quran. Yes, there is history that contradicts it, yes there are dozens of other texts that say other wise, yes there are billions of people that depute the claims.......

But everyone and every other text on the planet, are all wrong, and only the Quran is right!

No. One single report, with zero supporting evidence, does not contradict the entire world, and 100 years of economic history.

The CBO, is wrong, if it says what you claim it says.

The entire world is not wrong. All of economic history is not wrong. The CBO is wrong.
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
102
Points
85
ToddsterPatriot, if USA's minimum wage rate laws were eliminated. due to the consequential increased rate of unemployment among low-wage rate workers,
It would reduce the number of unemployed. As you admitted here.
ToddsterPatriot, I do not believe you cannot understand English. I believe you can understand English written in reasonably simply prose, and you can google any words you’re less than certain of.
You so often incorrectly accuse me of being wrong, but in this case, my immediately prior statement may be incorrect. It’s possible you do not well understand the English language.

I do sympathize for you and your language handicap. It must be very difficult for you to function. Respectfully, Supposn
ToddsterPatriot, I did not state eliminating the minimum wage rate would increase the number of people not employed. …
… I did state that it would increase low-wage rate jobs, which consequentially is an increase of employed low-wage rate workers

[also] It would not reduce but possibly increase the rate of unemployment among USA’s low-wage rate workers, …
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
62,261
Reaction score
11,247
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
ToddsterPatriot, if USA's minimum wage rate laws were eliminated. due to the consequential increased rate of unemployment among low-wage rate workers,
It would reduce the number of unemployed. As you admitted here.
ToddsterPatriot, I do not believe you cannot understand English. I believe you can understand English written in reasonably simply prose, and you can google any words you’re less than certain of.
You so often incorrectly accuse me of being wrong, but in this case, my immediately prior statement may be incorrect. It’s possible you do not well understand the English language.

I do sympathize for you and your language handicap. It must be very difficult for you to function. Respectfully, Supposn
ToddsterPatriot, I did not state eliminating the minimum wage rate would increase the number of people not employed. …
… I did state that it would increase low-wage rate jobs, which consequentially is an increase of employed low-wage rate workers

[also] It would not reduce but possibly increase the rate of unemployment among USA’s low-wage rate workers, …
ToddsterPatriot, I do not believe you cannot understand English.

State your claim in plain English.

Does eliminating the minimum wage increase or decrease employment?
 

toobfreak

Tungsten/Glass Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
32,216
Reaction score
16,464
Points
1,915
Location
On The Way Home To Earth
ToddsterPatriot, if USA's minimum wage rate laws were eliminated. due to the consequential increased rate of unemployment among low-wage rate workers,
It would reduce the number of unemployed. As you admitted here.
ToddsterPatriot, I do not believe you cannot understand English. I believe you can understand English written in reasonably simply prose, and you can google any words you’re less than certain of.
You so often incorrectly accuse me of being wrong, but in this case, my immediately prior statement may be incorrect. It’s possible you do not well understand the English language.
I do sympathize for you and your language handicap. It must be very difficult for you to function. Respectfully, Supposn
^^^^TRANSLATION: When people have nothing smart or relevant to say at all, they resort to ad hominem personal attacks like this.
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
102
Points
85
... State your claim in plain English.
Does eliminating the minimum wage increase or decrease employment?
ToddsterPatriot, I did, and apparently you still cannot understand plain English.
Respectfully, Supposn
ToddsterPatriot, I did not state eliminating the minimum wage rate would increase the number of people not employed. …
… I did state that it would increase low-wage rate jobs, which consequentially is an increase of employed low-wage rate workers

[also] It would not reduce but possibly increase the rate of unemployment among USA’s low-wage rate workers, …
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
62,261
Reaction score
11,247
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
... State your claim in plain English.
Does eliminating the minimum wage increase or decrease employment?
ToddsterPatriot, I did, and apparently you still cannot understand plain English.
Respectfully, Supposn
ToddsterPatriot, I did not state eliminating the minimum wage rate would increase the number of people not employed. …
… I did state that it would increase low-wage rate jobs, which consequentially is an increase of employed low-wage rate workers

[also] It would not reduce but possibly increase the rate of unemployment among USA’s low-wage rate workers, …
I did not state eliminating the minimum wage rate would increase the number of people not employed. …

Eliminating the minimum wage will increase employment. And GDP.

ToddsterPatriot, if USA's minimum wage rate laws were eliminated. due to the consequential increased rate of unemployment among low-wage rate workers,

Why do you feel an "increased rate of unemployment among low-wage rate workers" combined with
higher low wage employment is a bad thing?
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top