Minimum wage rate and labors’ market prices.

ToddsterPatriot, please check my figures & sources. If I’m inadvertently in error, I wish to correct it Respectfully, Supposn
/////////////////////////////////////
United States GDP and real GDP 1930-2020 | Statista
Valued in trillion 2020 U.S. dollar’s.
1968 GDP =4,792.3
2019 GDP = 19.091.7

///////////////////////////////////
https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543
Valued in trillion 2020 U.S. dollar’s.
1968 GDP = 4.792 Trillion $
2019 GDP = 19.092 Trillion $
Change of production, (i.e. GDP) =14.300 /19.092 = 0.749 = almost 75%


////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1970 census = 203,211,926
2020 (projected census) = 332,639,000
Change of projected population = 0.38969%

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543
1968 GDP / 1970 population = 4, 792, 000 / 203,211,926 = 0.02358
2019 GDP / 2020 (PROJECTED) population = 19, 092, 000 / 332,639, 000 = 0.057395
Change of GDP per capita = 0.057395 / 0.02358 = 0.0338

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Federal minimum wage rate of $1.60 in February-1968,
had the equivalent purchasing power of $11.83 in February-2019.

Loss of minimum rate’s purchasing power = (7.25 – 11.83) / 11.83 = 0.387 = more than 38% .

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
 
Last edited:
ToBFreak, we both recognize USA’s great chronic annual trade deficits are detrimental to our economic and social wellbeing.
Because producers do not always pay or charge full cost for the goods and services that contributed to the production of their products, product prices do not always reflect their entire production costs. Because all production costs contribute to their nations’ GDPs, this is inconsequential to the calculating nation’s GDP with the conventional expenditure method.

But to the extent that production costs are not entirely reflected within the pricing of globally traded products, extents of international trades’ contributions to trade surplus nations’, and detriments to trade deficit nations’ GDPs are somewhat understated.

Many economists believe due to USA’s substantial ratio between GDP and trade deficit, our trade deficit’s detrimental effects are less consequential. Others contend USA’s annual trade deficits are not inconsequential. Additionally, to any extent that our annual trade deficits were understated, their detriments to our GDP were similarly understated.

A trade deficit nation’s annual balance of trade always more than otherwise reduced their annual GDP and dragged upon their numbers of jobs and their payroll amounts.
Respectfully, Supposn
 
ToddsterPatriot, please check my figures & sources. If I’m inadvertently in error, I wish to correct it Respectfully, Supposn
/////////////////////////////////////
United States GDP and real GDP 1930-2020 | Statista
Valued in trillion 2020 U.S. dollar’s.
1968 GDP =4,792.3
2019 GDP = 19.091.7

///////////////////////////////////
https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543
Valued in trillion 2020 U.S. dollar’s.
1968 GDP = 4.792 Trillion $
2019 GDP = 19.092 Trillion $
Change of production, (i.e. GDP) =14.300 /19.092 = 0.749 = almost 75%


////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1970 census = 203,211,926
2020 (projected census) = 332,639,000
Change of projected population = 0.38969%

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543
1968 GDP / 1970 population = 4, 792, 000 / 203,211,926 = 0.02358
2019 GDP / 2020 (PROJECTED) population = 19, 092, 000 / 332,639, 000 = 0.057395
Change of GDP per capita = 0.057395 / 0.02358 = 0.0338

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Federal minimum wage rate of $1.60 in February-1968,
had the equivalent purchasing power of $11.83 in February-2019.

Loss of minimum rate’s purchasing power = (7.25 – 11.83) / 11.83 = 0.387 = more than 38% .

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

Change of production, (i.e. GDP) =14.300 /19.092 = 0.749 = almost 75%

Wow!

You're seriously bad at math.

1968 GDP = 4.792 Trillion $
2019 GDP = 19.092 Trillion $


Take your ending number, divide by your starting number.

19.092/4.792 = 3.984.

The ending GDP is 3.984 times the starting GDP.
Subtract 1 and turn into a percentage. 3.984-1= 2.984 or 298.4% growth in real GDP.

1970 census = 203,211,926
2020 (projected census) = 332,639,000
Change of projected population = 0.38969%

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543
1968 GDP / 1970 population = 4, 792, 000 / 203,211,926 = 0.02358
2019 GDP / 2020 (PROJECTED) population = 19, 092, 000 / 332,639, 000 = 0.057395
Change of GDP per capita = 0.057395 / 0.02358 = 0.0338


Don't know what you think you're trying to do here. Your math doesn't work.
Whatever that is, it has nothing to do with your original claim.


"Between 1968 and 2019:
USA’s population increased by more than 2% "


Or this.

"USA’s GDP per capita increased by almost 3.4%"
 
Eliminate welfare so US labor has more incentive to work.

Work or starve.
How does that accomplish this purpose for our form of Government which is socialism:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Clearly, market friendliness should be priority for the right wing who allege to be for small Government and free market Capitalism.
 
ToddsterPatriot, please check my figures & sources. If I’m inadvertently in error, I wish to correct it.
Minimum wage rate and inflation:
///////////////////////////////////
United States GDP and real GDP 1930-2020 | Statista
Valued in trillion 2012 U.S. dollar’s.

1968 GDP =4,792.3
2019 GDP = 19.091.7

///////////////////////////////////
An Annual Review of the U.S. Economy Since 1929
Valued in trillion 2012 U.S. dollar’s.

1968 GDP = 4.792 Trillion $
2019 GDP = 19.092 Trillion $
Change of production, (i.e. GDP) =19.092/4.792 = 3.948 > 294% increase.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1970 census = 203,211,926
2020 (projected census) = 332,639,000
Change of projected population = 332,639,000 / 203,211,926 = I.639, > 63% increase.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
An Annual Review of the U.S. Economy Since 1929
1968 GDP / 1970 population = $4.792 trillion / 203,211,926 = 0.000023.5810 =0. 0000 $23.581 million
2019 GDP / 2020 (PROJECTED) population = $19. 092 trillion / 332,639, 000 = 0. 0000 $57.395 million
Change of GDP per capita = $57.395 / $23.58 = 2.434 > 144% increase.

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

Federal minimum wage rate of $1.60 in February-1968,

had the equivalent purchasing power of $11.83 in February-2019.

Loss of minimum rate’s purchasing power = (7.25 – 11.83) / 11.83 = 0.387 > 38% loss.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ToddsterPatriot, do these figures check out OK? Respectfully, Supposn

Much better!!!
 
... 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?
ToddsterPatriot, the federal minimum wage rate influences ALL employs earning rates within the low-wage bracket of wage rates. It substantially effects e 32% of USA's employees' rates and no less than the lowest income fifth of USA's wage-earning families' incomes.

You continuously insert the fact that less than 2% of USA employees earn precisely the applicable minimum wage rate. You pretend not understanding that’s not germane to the question of minimum wage rate law’s justifications. I’m a patient old man. Your pretense of ignorance tires my patience.
Respectfully, Supposn
 
... 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?
ToddsterPatriot, the federal minimum wage rate influences ALL employs earning rates within the low-wage bracket of wage rates. It substantially effects e 32% of USA's employees' rates and no less than the lowest income fifth of USA's wage-earning families' incomes.

You continuously insert the fact that less than 2% of USA employees earn precisely the applicable minimum wage rate. You pretend not understanding that’s not germane to the question of minimum wage rate law’s justifications. I’m a patient old man. Your pretense of ignorance tires my patience.
Respectfully, Supposn

It substantially effects e 32% of USA's employees' rates and no less than the lowest income fifth of USA's wage-earning families' incomes.

You're lying.

You continuously insert the fact that less than 2% of USA employees earn precisely the applicable minimum wage rate.

98% earn more, without federal government coercion. Why do you feel that is the case?

You pretend not understanding that’s not germane to the question of minimum wage rate law’s justifications.

It is germane. Especially to your "race to the bottom" claim.

Your pretense of ignorance tires my patience.

My knowledge highlights your pretentious ignorance.
 
Supposn posted:
... federal minimum wage rate’s purchasing power........ was reduced by more than 38% ?
ToddsterPatriot replied:
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?

Supposn posted:
The federal minimum wage rate influences ALL employs earning rates within the low-wage bracket of wage rates. It substantially effects e 32% of USA's employees' rates and no less than the lowest income fifth of USA's wage-earning families' incomes.

ToddsterPatriot replied:
You're lying.
Supposn’s replying:
On these points my observations and conclusions effectively concur with those of the U.S. Congressional Budget Office. We’re all lying?

Supposn posted:
You continuously insert the fact that less than 2% of USA employees earn precisely the applicable minimum wage rate. You pretend not understanding that’s not germane to the question of minimum wage rate law’s justifications. I’m a patient old man. Your pretense of ignorance tires my patience. … .

ToddsterPatriot replied:
98% earn more, without federal government coercion. Why do you feel that is the case?
Supposn’s replying:
It’s due to employer’s general wage-differential practices. Foreperson’s rates’ exceed the rates’ of those they supervise; more valuable employees rate’s exceed those of less valuable employees.

Supposn posted:
You pretend not understanding that’s, [les than 2% of employees earn precisely the minimum rate is] not germane to the question of minimum wage rate law’s justifications.

ToddsterPatriot replied:
It is germane. Especially to your "race to the bottom" claim.
Supposn’s replying:
???

Supposn posted:
Your pretense of ignorance tires my patience.

ToddsterPatriot replied:
My knowledge highlights your pretentious ignorance.
 
Supposn posted:
... federal minimum wage rate’s purchasing power........ was reduced by more than 38% ?
ToddsterPatriot replied:
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?

Supposn posted:
The federal minimum wage rate influences ALL employs earning rates within the low-wage bracket of wage rates. It substantially effects e 32% of USA's employees' rates and no less than the lowest income fifth of USA's wage-earning families' incomes.

ToddsterPatriot replied:
You're lying.
Supposn’s replying:
On these points my observations and conclusions effectively concur with those of the U.S. Congressional Budget Office. We’re all lying?

Supposn posted:
You continuously insert the fact that less than 2% of USA employees earn precisely the applicable minimum wage rate. You pretend not understanding that’s not germane to the question of minimum wage rate law’s justifications. I’m a patient old man. Your pretense of ignorance tires my patience. … .

ToddsterPatriot replied:
98% earn more, without federal government coercion. Why do you feel that is the case?
Supposn’s replying:
It’s due to employer’s general wage-differential practices. Foreperson’s rates’ exceed the rates’ of those they supervise; more valuable employees rate’s exceed those of less valuable employees.

Supposn posted:
You pretend not understanding that’s, [les than 2% of employees earn precisely the minimum rate is] not germane to the question of minimum wage rate law’s justifications.

ToddsterPatriot replied:
It is germane. Especially to your "race to the bottom" claim.
Supposn’s replying:
???

Supposn posted:
Your pretense of ignorance tires my patience.

ToddsterPatriot replied:
My knowledge highlights your pretentious ignorance.

On these points my observations and conclusions effectively concur with those of the U.S. Congressional Budget Office. We’re all lying?

Where did the CBO say "It substantially effects 32% of USA's employees' rates"?

You must have that exact claim by the CBO.....somewhere.

It’s due to employer’s general wage-differential practices.

Are you claiming that employers pay more than minimum wage, because it's good business practice? If that's the case, why would they cut all wages if the minimum wage is repealed?

Supposn’s replying:
???


Forget your race to the bottom claims already?
 
How does that accomplish this purpose

Incentives. Did you already forget your post?
No, I merely remember right wing Talking points regarding you all not wanting statutory minimum wage laws merely to Prove to persons of the people, how much y'all really value them as Labor and human Capital for production.
 
On these points my observations and conclusions effectively concur with those of the U.S. Congressional Budget Office. We’re all lying? ...

You must have that exact claim by the CBO.....somewhere. ...
ToddsterPatriot, I should have, but didn’t. This is one of those too often rare occasions when I remembered and was able to retrieve information in a reasonable duration of time. Refer to, https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf ,
Page 17, “figure 6. Shares of Workers, by Family Income Group, 2025”:
The graph indicates 2025 projections:

More than 15 % of USA’s low wage workers will be members of families with incomes less than twice the poverty threshold for a family of their size.

More than 30 % of USA’s low wage workers will be members of families with incomes less than 3 times the poverty threshold for a family of their size. (This coincides with CBO’s conclusion of 32% of USA workers earning rates within the low-wage rate bracket of rates).

[Referring to: What are the The 2018 poverty thresholds? - Bing
The 2018 poverty threshold for a family of 3 is $20,780 gross.
The 2018 poverty threshold for a family of 4 is $25,100 gross.

Unless otherwise stated, these CBO publications regarding the federal minimum wage rate express all but the nominal minimum wage rate’s value, as 2018 U.S. dollar’s values.
It’s reasonable to conclude from these CBO’s defining of their terms used within these of their publications, and the afore mentioned graph, low-wage rate income families, (whose entire wage earning members must effectively earning low-wage rates), account for much greater than 15 % and less 30% of all USA families.
Respectfully Supposn
 
On these points my observations and conclusions effectively concur with those of the U.S. Congressional Budget Office. We’re all lying? ...

You must have that exact claim by the CBO.....somewhere. ...
ToddsterPatriot, I should have, but didn’t. This is one of those too often rare occasions when I remembered and was able to retrieve information in a reasonable duration of time. Refer to, https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf ,
Page 17, “figure 6. Shares of Workers, by Family Income Group, 2025”:
The graph indicates 2025 projections:

More than 15 % of USA’s low wage workers will be members of families with incomes less than twice the poverty threshold for a family of their size.

More than 30 % of USA’s low wage workers will be members of families with incomes less than 3 times the poverty threshold for a family of their size. (This coincides with CBO’s conclusion of 32% of USA workers earning rates within the low-wage rate bracket of rates).

[Referring to: What are the The 2018 poverty thresholds? - Bing
The 2018 poverty threshold for a family of 3 is $20,780 gross.
The 2018 poverty threshold for a family of 4 is $25,100 gross.

Unless otherwise stated, these CBO publications regarding the federal minimum wage rate express all but the nominal minimum wage rate’s value, as 2018 U.S. dollar’s values.
It’s reasonable to conclude from these CBO’s defining of their terms used within these of their publications, and the afore mentioned graph, low-wage rate income families, (whose entire wage earning members must effectively earning low-wage rates), account for much greater than 15 % and less 30% of all USA families.
Respectfully Supposn

Thanks for the link.

Do you have one that supports your claim?

CBO’s conclusion of 32% of USA workers earning rates within the low-wage rate bracket of rates

Low-wage bracket doesn't mean the minimum wage substantially affects 32% of USA's employees' rates
 
... Do you have one that supports your claim?

CBO’s conclusion of 32% of USA workers earning rates within the low-wage rate bracket of rates

Low-wage bracket doesn't mean the minimum wage substantially affects 32% of USA's employees' rates
ToddsterPatriot, the Congressional Budget office, (i.e. CBO), is required to obtain the most superior professional advice, facts, statistics available to them, gather what credible facts, statistics, and evidence that’s available to them. CBO’s reports are not particularly recognized as comparatively more or less superior to other credible entities, but no less than reports and opinions from any other entities, CBO’s reports to the U.S. Congress are considered as politically non-partisan.
(They’re certainly less partisan than for example, a U.S. President’s “State of the Nation” report to the Congress).

CBO’s reports indicate their attributing some portion of wage increases to minimum wage rate increases, and attributing greater rate increases to lower rather than higher wage rates. This coincides with the concept of minimum wage rate’s influential benefits to other wage rates, (due to employers’ wage differential practices).

CBO's reports also support the concept of the beneficial relationship between the minimum’s and a job’s wage rates The extent of those benefits are proportionally and inversely related to the differences between the minimum’s and the job’s rate; (i.e. lower rates greater, and higher rates lesser benefit from minimum’s rate). But the minimum wage rate is not harmful to any other wage rate.

Proportionally small numbers of economic concepts can be proven or disproven to the of criminal justices’ standards of “proof, beyond a reasonable doubt”. Few economic concepts can be tested as physical science tests in repeatable experiments within which all related factors can be gauged and adjusted to fully test the subject of the test.
But many economic concepts satisfy civil courts’ standard of a “preponderance of truth”.

Answers to these questions are all somewhat more subjective rather than objective. You disagree with mine and the CBO’s reports' conclusions regarding the federal minimum wage rate. I believe I've made my case; you believe otherwise.
Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:
... Do you have one that supports your claim?

CBO’s conclusion of 32% of USA workers earning rates within the low-wage rate bracket of rates

Low-wage bracket doesn't mean the minimum wage substantially affects 32% of USA's employees' rates
ToddsterPatriot, the Congressional Budget office, (i.e. CBO), is required to obtain the most superior professional advice, facts, statistics available to them, gather what credible facts, statistics, and evidence that’s available to them. CBO’s reports are not particularly recognized as comparatively more or less superior to other credible entities, but no less than reports and opinions from any other entities, CBO’s reports to the U.S. Congress are considered as politically non-partisan.
(They’re certainly less partisan than for example, a U.S. President’s “State of the Nation” report to the Congress).

CBO’s reports indicate their attributing some portion of wage increases to minimum wage rate increases, and attributing greater rate increases to lower rather than higher wage rates. This coincides with the concept of minimum wage rate’s influential benefits to other wage rates, (due to employers’ wage differential practices).

CBO's reports also support the concept of the beneficial relationship between the minimum’s and a job’s wage rates The extent of those benefits are proportionally and inversely related to the differences between the minimum’s and the job’s rate; (i.e. lower rates greater, and higher rates lesser benefit from minimum’s rate). But the minimum wage rate is not harmful to any other wage rate.

Proportionally small numbers of economic concepts can be proven or disproven to the of criminal justices’ standards of “proof, beyond a reasonable doubt”. Few economic concepts can be tested as physical science tests in repeatable experiments within which all related factors can be gauged and adjusted to fully test the subject of the test.
But many economic concepts satisfy civil courts’ standard of a “preponderance of truth”.

Answers to these questions are all somewhat more subjective rather than objective. You disagree with mine and the CBO’s reports' conclusions regarding the federal minimum wage rate. I believe I've made my case; you believe otherwise.
Respectfully, Supposn

the Congressional Budget office, (i.e. CBO), is required to obtain the most superior professional advice, facts, statistics available to them, gather what credible facts, statistics, and evidence that’s available to them. CBO’s reports are not particularly recognized as comparatively more or less superior to other credible entities, but no less than reports and opinions from any other entities, CBO’s reports to the U.S. Congress are considered as politically non-partisan.
(They’re certainly less partisan than for example, a U.S. President’s “State of the Nation” report to the Congress).


Awesome!!

But you still don't have a source that supports your claim.

You disagree with mine and the CBO’s reports' conclusions regarding the federal minimum wage rate.

Based on your HUGE math errors upthread, you don't deserve to put your conclusions in the same category as the CBO's conclusions.
 
... But you still don't have a source that supports your claim.

Based on your HUGE math errors upthread, you don't deserve to put your conclusions in the same category as the CBO's conclusions.
ToddsterPatriot, my conclusions are not based upon my arithmetic calculations, but they do coincide with those of the U.S. Congressional Budget Office’s conclusions that are to a great extent based upon statistics available to them.

Thank you for pointing out my calculation errors. You’ll note that the correction of those errors further support mine and the CBO’s conclusions that you’re doubting.
Respectfully, Supposn
 
... But you still don't have a source that supports your claim.

Based on your HUGE math errors upthread, you don't deserve to put your conclusions in the same category as the CBO's conclusions.
ToddsterPatriot, my conclusions are not based upon my arithmetic calculations, but they do coincide with those of the U.S. Congressional Budget Office’s conclusions that are to a great extent based upon statistics available to them.

Thank you for pointing out my calculation errors. You’ll note that the correction of those errors further support mine and the CBO’s conclusions that you’re doubting.
Respectfully, Supposn

my conclusions are not based upon my arithmetic calculations, but they do coincide with those of the U.S. Congressional Budget Office’s conclusions


The conclusions of the CBO do not support your claim.........

The minimum wage substantially effects 32% of USA's employees' rates

Try again?

You’ll note that the correction of those errors further support mine and the CBO’s conclusions that you’re doubting.

IIRC, your egregiously faulty calculations for GDP per capita and minimum wage purchasing power weren't discussed by CBO in your link. They don't support a CBO conclusion. You're on your own.
 
... The conclusions of the CBO do not support your claim [that] The minimum wage substantially effects 32% of USA's employees' rates
Try again? ... IIRC, your egregiously faulty calculations for GDP per capita and minimum wage purchasing power weren't discussed by CBO in your link. They don't support a CBO conclusion. You're on your own.
ToddsterPatriot, my conclusions are not based upon my arithmetic calculations, but they do coincide with those of the U.S. Congressional Budget Office’s conclusions that are to a great extent based upon statistics available to them.

Thank you for pointing out my calculation errors. You’ll note that the correction of those errors further support mine and the CBO’s conclusions that you’re doubting. …
What's IRC? Respectfully, Supposn
 
... The conclusions of the CBO do not support your claim [that] The minimum wage substantially effects 32% of USA's employees' rates
Try again? ... IIRC, your egregiously faulty calculations for GDP per capita and minimum wage purchasing power weren't discussed by CBO in your link. They don't support a CBO conclusion. You're on your own.
ToddsterPatriot, my conclusions are not based upon my arithmetic calculations, but they do coincide with those of the U.S. Congressional Budget Office’s conclusions that are to a great extent based upon statistics available to them.

Thank you for pointing out my calculation errors. You’ll note that the correction of those errors further support mine and the CBO’s conclusions that you’re doubting. …
What's IRC? Respectfully, Supposn

my conclusions are not based upon my arithmetic calculations, but they do coincide with those of the U.S. Congressional Budget Office’s conclusions that are to a great extent based upon statistics available to them.

Your conclusions are not supported by the CBO link you provided. Try again?

What's IRC?

IIRC.
If I Recall Correctly.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top