Minimum wage rate and labors’ market prices.

OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
102
Points
85
^^^^TRANSLATION: When people have nothing smart or relevant to say at all, they resort to ad hominem personal attacks like this.
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.
ToBFeak, due to ToddsterPatriot’s deliberate or inadvertent misunderstanding what I posted in English, his post attributed what we both agree to, as to be our conclusions of consequences if USA eliminate our minimum wage laws.
ToddsterPatriot effectively was misquoting me by excerpting a part of my post’ out of context. 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, …
 

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
^^^^TRANSLATION: When people have nothing smart or relevant to say at all, they resort to ad hominem personal attacks like this.
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.
ToBFeak, due to ToddsterPatriot’s deliberate or inadvertent misunderstanding what I posted in English, his post attributed what we both agree to, as to be our conclusions of consequences if USA eliminate our minimum wage laws.
ToddsterPatriot effectively was misquoting me by excerpting a part of my post’ out of context. 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, …

Well, without a doubt, if they raise the min wage to $15/hr around here, many people would lose their jobs as employers cut staff to a minimum plus raised cost of services. Those remaining would be working much harder (but making more), and companies would lose business due to increased prices.
  • People lose jobs.
  • Companies lose business and money due to higher labor costs and fewer sales.
  • Consumer loses across the board as costs passed onto them raise cost of living, food, just about everything you can think of, as everyone else once making $15-$20/hr--- once much over minimum as skilled labor are now essentially making minimum or close to minimum so demand a raise too.
  • Inflation through the roof.
The only viable way to make more money (a living wage) is not through government force but through the free market by having enough skills that employers are WILLING to freely pay you more because you RAISE THEIR PRODUCTIVITY enough to justify it, not just because the law says you have to.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
60,696
Reaction score
2,420
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
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.
Only Capital has to circulate under Capitalism. How is it not a stabilizer. The stabilization comes from people circulating Capital under our form of Capitalism not providing Labor with a natural rate of unemployment under Capitalism that is an automatic destabilizer. FDR knew that last millennium, only the right wing still doesn't get it. And, Employment is at the will of either party.

Simply paying people at the rock bottom cost of that alternative form of "minimum wage" automatically stabilizes markets via that known quantity of capital circulating. It also engenders an upward pressure on wages on that Institutional basis. Why do you have a problem solving simple poverty via that automatic process which relies on Individual Liberty and rational choice under Capitalism? Only national socialists should have a problem with it. Right Wingers give themselves away.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
60,696
Reaction score
2,420
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
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?
Does that mean right wingers prefer to cut labor costs via slavery, like in the good old days?
 

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.
Only Capital has to circulate under Capitalism. How is it not a stabilizer. The stabilization comes from people circulating Capital under our form of Capitalism not providing Labor with a natural rate of unemployment under Capitalism that is an automatic destabilizer. FDR knew that last millennium, only the right wing still doesn't get it. And, Employment is at the will of either party.

Simply paying people at the rock bottom cost of that alternative form of "minimum wage" automatically stabilizes markets via that known quantity of capital circulating. It also engenders an upward pressure on wages on that Institutional basis. Why do you have a problem solving simple poverty via that automatic process which relies on Individual Liberty and rational choice under Capitalism? Only national socialists should have a problem with it. Right Wingers give themselves away.
Incentizing unemployment is stupid and economically harmful.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
60,696
Reaction score
2,420
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
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.
Only Capital has to circulate under Capitalism. How is it not a stabilizer. The stabilization comes from people circulating Capital under our form of Capitalism not providing Labor with a natural rate of unemployment under Capitalism that is an automatic destabilizer. FDR knew that last millennium, only the right wing still doesn't get it. And, Employment is at the will of either party.

Simply paying people at the rock bottom cost of that alternative form of "minimum wage" automatically stabilizes markets via that known quantity of capital circulating. It also engenders an upward pressure on wages on that Institutional basis. Why do you have a problem solving simple poverty via that automatic process which relies on Individual Liberty and rational choice under Capitalism? Only national socialists should have a problem with it. Right Wingers give themselves away.
Incentivizing unemployment is stupid and economically harmful.
lol. Why should I take your word for it? You only have a fallacy of false cause. Why do you believe "incentivizing unemployment is stupid and harmful", what you claim is not a self-evident truth.

And, I thought you believed in free market Capitalism. "Incentivising unemployment means an upward pressure on wages" on an Institutional basis. Want the Poor to work, don't incentivize socialism on a national basis, raise wages until you hire all the people you need.
 

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.
Only Capital has to circulate under Capitalism. How is it not a stabilizer. The stabilization comes from people circulating Capital under our form of Capitalism not providing Labor with a natural rate of unemployment under Capitalism that is an automatic destabilizer. FDR knew that last millennium, only the right wing still doesn't get it. And, Employment is at the will of either party.

Simply paying people at the rock bottom cost of that alternative form of "minimum wage" automatically stabilizes markets via that known quantity of capital circulating. It also engenders an upward pressure on wages on that Institutional basis. Why do you have a problem solving simple poverty via that automatic process which relies on Individual Liberty and rational choice under Capitalism? Only national socialists should have a problem with it. Right Wingers give themselves away.
Incentivizing unemployment is stupid and economically harmful.
lol. Why should I take your word for it? You only have a fallacy of false cause. Why do you believe "incentivizing unemployment is stupid and harmful", what you claim is not a self-evident truth.

And, I thought you believed in free market Capitalism. "Incentivising unemployment means an upward pressure on wages" on an Institutional basis. Want the Poor to work, don't incentivize socialism on a national basis, raise wages until you hire all the people you need.
And, I thought you believed in free market Capitalism.

Paying never employed people for never working isn't capitalism or free market.

"Incentivising unemployment means an upward pressure on wages"

Incentivising sloth disincentivizes work.

Want the Poor to work,

Don't pay them to not work.
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
102
Points
85
Well, without a doubt, if they raise the min wage to $15/hr around here, many people would lose their jobs as employers cut staff to a minimum plus raised cost of services. Those remaining would be working much harder (but making more), and companies would lose business due to increased prices.
  • People lose jobs.
  • Companies lose business and money due to higher labor costs and fewer sales.
  • Consumer loses across the board as costs passed onto them raise cost of living, food, just about everything you can think of, as everyone else once making $15-$20/hr--- once much over minimum as skilled labor are now essentially making minimum or close to minimum so demand a raise too.
  • Inflation through the roof.
The only viable way to make more money (a living wage) is not through government force but through the free market by having enough skills that employers are WILLING to freely pay you more because you RAISE THEIR PRODUCTIVITY enough to justify it, not just because the law says you have to.
TooBFreak, reducing or permitting the legally enforced minimum wage rate’s purchasing power to be reduced in order to increase the numbers of lower-wage rate jobs, is akin to applying a tourniquet around the patient’s neck to reduce a nosebleed. Both remedies work and both are counter-proactive.

Eliminating the legally enforced minimum wage rate would increase jobs of extremely poor wage rates, would increasing the nation’s incidences and extents of poverty, and would not reduce (but in poorer economic periods would increase) unemployment rates among all lower-wage rate workers. , while increasing the nation’s incidences and extents of poverty.
Eliminating the legally enforced minimum wage rate is carrying out a counter-productive economic policy to its most extreme extent. Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:

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
Well, without a doubt, if they raise the min wage to $15/hr around here, many people would lose their jobs as employers cut staff to a minimum plus raised cost of services. Those remaining would be working much harder (but making more), and companies would lose business due to increased prices.
  • People lose jobs.
  • Companies lose business and money due to higher labor costs and fewer sales.
  • Consumer loses across the board as costs passed onto them raise cost of living, food, just about everything you can think of, as everyone else once making $15-$20/hr--- once much over minimum as skilled labor are now essentially making minimum or close to minimum so demand a raise too.
  • Inflation through the roof.
The only viable way to make more money (a living wage) is not through government force but through the free market by having enough skills that employers are WILLING to freely pay you more because you RAISE THEIR PRODUCTIVITY enough to justify it, not just because the law says you have to.
TooBFreak, reducing or permitting the legally enforced minimum wage rate’s purchasing power to be reduced in order to increase the numbers of lower-wage rate jobs, is akin to applying a tourniquet around the patient’s neck to reduce a nosebleed. Both remedies work and both are counter-proactive.

Eliminating the legally enforced minimum wage rate would increase jobs of extremely poor wage rates, would increasing the nation’s incidences and extents of poverty, and would not reduce (but in poorer economic periods would increase) unemployment rates among all lower-wage rate workers. , while increasing the nation’s incidences and extents of poverty.
Eliminating the legally enforced minimum wage rate is carrying out a counter-productive economic policy to its most extreme extent. Respectfully, Supposn

RUBBISH, sUPposN, do not put words in my mouth or change the meaning of what I said! A member of 11 years ought to know better. My comments were directed at RAISING the minimum wage and the consequences thereof to artificially through government force imposed on employers to make it a living wage a family could live on for jobs which required no skills intended for people entering the workforce, I didn't say a thing about REDUCING anyone's wage or eliminating anything.
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
102
Points
85
RUBBISH, sUPposN, do not put words in my mouth or change the meaning of what I said! A member of 11 years ought to know better. My comments were directed at RAISING the minimum wage and the consequences thereof to artificially through government force imposed on employers to make it a living wage a family could live on for jobs which required no skills intended for people entering the workforce, I didn't say a thing about REDUCING anyone's wage or eliminating anything.
TooBFreak, the federal minimum rates reached its historical peak purchasing power when it was increased to $1.60 per hour in February-1968. The minimum wage then wasn’t of a great boon to USA’s lower wage-earning families and our economy would have been more improved if the purchasing power of the minimum wage rate had been increased since then.

Using the U.S. Dept of Labor’s inflation calculator based upon the Consumer Price Index, (i.e. CPI), we learn the federal minimum wage rate’s February-1968 $1.60 per hour rate has equivalent purchasing power to $12.18 in September-2020.
Refer to: CPI Inflation Calculator .

TooBFreak, I did not imply you advocated reduction of the minimum rate. Due to U.S. Congress’s failure to keep the federal minimum wage rate abreast to the U.S. dollar’s rate of inflation, they have permitted it to lose 68% of its purchasing power over the last 62 years.
(12.18 – 7.25) / 7.25 = 68% . Respectfully, Supposn
 

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
RUBBISH, sUPposN, do not put words in my mouth or change the meaning of what I said! A member of 11 years ought to know better. My comments were directed at RAISING the minimum wage and the consequences thereof to artificially through government force imposed on employers to make it a living wage a family could live on for jobs which required no skills intended for people entering the workforce, I didn't say a thing about REDUCING anyone's wage or eliminating anything.
TooBFreak, the federal minimum rates reached its historical peak purchasing power when it was increased to $1.60 per hour in February-1968. The minimum wage then wasn’t of a great boon to USA’s lower wage-earning families and our economy would have been more improved if the purchasing power of the minimum wage rate had been increased since then.

Using the U.S. Dept of Labor’s inflation calculator based upon the Consumer Price Index, (i.e. CPI), we learn the federal minimum wage rate’s February-1968 $1.60 per hour rate has equivalent purchasing power to $12.18 in September-2020.
Refer to: CPI Inflation Calculator .

TooBFreak, I did not imply you advocated reduction of the minimum rate. Due to U.S. Congress’s failure to keep the federal minimum wage rate abreast to the U.S. dollar’s rate of inflation, they have permitted it to lose 68% of its purchasing power over the last 62 years.
(12.18 – 7.25) / 7.25 = 68% . Respectfully, Supposn
That's actually right. I figured out some time back that in the late 70s, whatever I was making or whatever the min. was, you would need to make about $13/hr today, which means that anyone making less than $13/hr today is actually making less than what once was minimum wage.

Which is why I would never take a job for less than $13 now. The American worker is getting screwed. But then, that is a different issue than what we were talking about, you can't raise the minimum wage to $15/hr without readjusting the ENTIRE labor market accordingly! This would cause a huge economic downturn because it would force everyone to raise prices for services, cost of living would go up greatly, and there would be a huge fall in the GDP and we'd be right back where we started, in a worse position than before.

AT THE HEART OF THE ISSUE is what has changed since 1968: we are competing in a global market today, and the only way we can compete it to pay OUR PEOPLE LESS closer to the wages of foreign markets! So again, we are getting screwed. Globalism doesn't work. The very issue Trump is trying to chip away at, but the globalists are fighting tooth and nail trying to stop him, and if you are voting for Biden, you are part of the very problem you oppose.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
62,261
Reaction score
11,247
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
reducing or permitting the legally enforced minimum wage rate’s purchasing power to be reduced in order to increase the numbers of lower-wage rate jobs, is akin to applying a tourniquet around the patient’s neck to reduce a nosebleed.
Because some blood to the head (income) is worse than no blood to the head.
Well, without a doubt, if they raise the min wage to $15/hr around here, many people would lose their jobs as employers cut staff to a minimum plus raised cost of services. Those remaining would be working much harder (but making more), and companies would lose business due to increased prices.
  • People lose jobs.
  • Companies lose business and money due to higher labor costs and fewer sales.
  • Consumer loses across the board as costs passed onto them raise cost of living, food, just about everything you can think of, as everyone else once making $15-$20/hr--- once much over minimum as skilled labor are now essentially making minimum or close to minimum so demand a raise too.
  • Inflation through the roof.
The only viable way to make more money (a living wage) is not through government force but through the free market by having enough skills that employers are WILLING to freely pay you more because you RAISE THEIR PRODUCTIVITY enough to justify it, not just because the law says you have to.
TooBFreak, reducing or permitting the legally enforced minimum wage rate’s purchasing power to be reduced in order to increase the numbers of lower-wage rate jobs, is akin to applying a tourniquet around the patient’s neck to reduce a nosebleed. Both remedies work and both are counter-proactive.

Eliminating the legally enforced minimum wage rate would increase jobs of extremely poor wage rates, would increasing the nation’s incidences and extents of poverty, and would not reduce (but in poorer economic periods would increase) unemployment rates among all lower-wage rate workers. , while increasing the nation’s incidences and extents of poverty.
Eliminating the legally enforced minimum wage rate is carrying out a counter-productive economic policy to its most extreme extent. Respectfully, Supposn
and would not reduce (but in poorer economic periods would increase) unemployment rates among all lower-wage rate workers.

Why are you worried about the unemployment rate when the number of employed is higher?
Are you being intentionally misleading?
Or are you ignorant of the calculation of the unemployment rate?

Maybe if you show how you think the UE rate increases, I can show you your error?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
62,261
Reaction score
11,247
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
RUBBISH, sUPposN, do not put words in my mouth or change the meaning of what I said! A member of 11 years ought to know better. My comments were directed at RAISING the minimum wage and the consequences thereof to artificially through government force imposed on employers to make it a living wage a family could live on for jobs which required no skills intended for people entering the workforce, I didn't say a thing about REDUCING anyone's wage or eliminating anything.
TooBFreak, the federal minimum rates reached its historical peak purchasing power when it was increased to $1.60 per hour in February-1968. The minimum wage then wasn’t of a great boon to USA’s lower wage-earning families and our economy would have been more improved if the purchasing power of the minimum wage rate had been increased since then.

Using the U.S. Dept of Labor’s inflation calculator based upon the Consumer Price Index, (i.e. CPI), we learn the federal minimum wage rate’s February-1968 $1.60 per hour rate has equivalent purchasing power to $12.18 in September-2020.
Refer to: CPI Inflation Calculator .

TooBFreak, I did not imply you advocated reduction of the minimum rate. Due to U.S. Congress’s failure to keep the federal minimum wage rate abreast to the U.S. dollar’s rate of inflation, they have permitted it to lose 68% of its purchasing power over the last 62 years.
(12.18 – 7.25) / 7.25 = 68% . Respectfully, Supposn
Due to U.S. Congress’s failure to keep the federal minimum wage rate abreast to the U.S. dollar’s rate of inflation, they have permitted it to lose 68% of its purchasing power over the last 62 years.
(12.18 – 7.25) / 7.25 = 68% . Respectfully, Supposn


Ummm.....allowing it to fall from a value of $12.18 to a value of $7.25 is a loss of 40.5%.
Over 52, not 62 years.

(12.18 – 7.25) / 12.18 = 40.5%

A loss of 68% would make today's minimum $3.90
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
62,261
Reaction score
11,247
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
AT THE HEART OF THE ISSUE is what has changed since 1968: we are competing in a global market today, and the only way we can compete it to pay OUR PEOPLE LESS closer to the wages of foreign markets!
Plus, importing millions of low skilled illegal aliens to compete with low skilled Americans
hurts our low skilled workers.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
60,696
Reaction score
2,420
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
AT THE HEART OF THE ISSUE is what has changed since 1968: we are competing in a global market today, and the only way we can compete it to pay OUR PEOPLE LESS closer to the wages of foreign markets!
Plus, importing millions of low skilled illegal aliens to compete with low skilled Americans
hurts our low skilled workers.
Raise the minimum wage so US labor has more incentive to work.
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
102
Points
85
Due to U.S. Congress’s failure to keep the federal minimum wage rate abreast to the U.S. dollar’s rate of inflation, they have permitted it to lose 68% of its purchasing power over the last 62 years.
(12.18 – 7.25) / 7.25 = 68% . Respectfully, Supposn


Ummm.....allowing it to fall from a value of $12.18 to a value of $7.25 is a loss of 40.5%.
Over 52, not 62 years.
(12.18 – 7.25) / 12.18 = 40.5%
A loss of 68% would make today's minimum $3.90
ToddsterPatriot, I sit corrected because I don’t stand before my keyboard. I miscalculated the loss of purchasing power loss within an excess of a half century. Between 1968 and 2019:

USA’s population increased by more than 2% ;
USA’s production, (i.e. GDP) increased by almost 75% ;
USA’s GDP per capita increased by almost 3.4% ;

But USA’s federal minimum wage rate’s purchasing power, which substantially (if not critically) effects the rates of all lower-wage rate employees and the incomes of all lower-wage earning families, was reduced by more than 38% ?
Respectfully, Supposn
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
102
Points
85
... AT THE HEART OF THE ISSUE is what has changed since 1968: we are competing in a global market today, and the only way we can compete it to pay OUR PEOPLE LESS closer to the wages of foreign markets! So again, we are getting screwed. Globalism doesn't work. The very issue Trump is trying to chip away at, but the globalists are fighting tooth and nail trying to stop him, and if you are voting for Biden, you are part of the very problem you oppose.
ToBFreak, trade deficits indicate the nation in aggregate has purchased more products than it has produced. For any given value of aggregate national spending, trade surplus nations increased, and trade deficit nations reduced their gross domestic product, (i.e. GDP) more than otherwise.
I’m among the proponents of the improved proposed policy described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article; refer to: Import certificates - Wikipedia .

Import Certificates would be superior to tariffs, pure free trade, or any other trade policy I've ever encountered. Respectfully, Supposn
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
62,261
Reaction score
11,247
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
Due to U.S. Congress’s failure to keep the federal minimum wage rate abreast to the U.S. dollar’s rate of inflation, they have permitted it to lose 68% of its purchasing power over the last 62 years.
(12.18 – 7.25) / 7.25 = 68% . Respectfully, Supposn


Ummm.....allowing it to fall from a value of $12.18 to a value of $7.25 is a loss of 40.5%.
Over 52, not 62 years.
(12.18 – 7.25) / 12.18 = 40.5%
A loss of 68% would make today's minimum $3.90
ToddsterPatriot, I sit corrected because I don’t stand before my keyboard. I miscalculated the loss of purchasing power loss within an excess of a half century. Between 1968 and 2019:

USA’s population increased by more than 2% ;
USA’s production, (i.e. GDP) increased by almost 75% ;
USA’s GDP per capita increased by almost 3.4% ;

But USA’s federal minimum wage rate’s purchasing power, which substantially (if not critically) effects the rates of all lower-wage rate employees and the incomes of all lower-wage earning families, was reduced by more than 38% ?
Respectfully, Supposn
Between 1968 and 2019:
USA’s population increased by more than 2% ;


Don't know where you got this number........

USA’s production, (i.e. GDP) increased by almost 75% ;

Wow! Your number is so far off.

1604157082000.png



Real GDP increased 295%.

USA’s GDP per capita increased by almost 3.4% ;

You're not good at this.

1604157326512.png




GDP per capita increased 139%.

federal minimum wage rate’s purchasing power........
was reduced by more than 38% ?


Yes. First time workers and the least skilled of our workers, the bottom 2% of our hourly workers,
don't benefit from the massive investments in equipment and technology that our modern technology has spent on productive, high-skilled workers.

How much more productive is the guy mopping the floor or cleaning the bathroom or dropping the fries into the hot oil today, compared to 1968?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top