Minimum wage rate and labors’ market prices.

[Supposn]

QUOTE="Supposn, post: 25842826, member: 20145"]
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? ...

ToddsterPatriot, your opinion of my conclusions are not supported by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office’s reports. Try again?
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Andylusion]

QUOTE="Supposn, post: 25842826, member: 20145"]
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? ...

ToddsterPatriot, your opinion of my conclusions are not supported by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office’s reports. Try again?
Respectfully, Supposn

Still pushing that false claim. Wow. Thomas Sowell, the famous economist had it right when he said debating smart people is easy. They know limitations of their position. It's debating stupid people, that is hard.
380 posts on this topic, and you still are no more informed about it, than you were on post number 1.

Debating stupid people is really hard, when all they do is parrot false statement after false statement, and never learn anything from the information presented to do them. I'd love to see you debate anyone live, just to see you can smashed over and over.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

QUOTE="Supposn, post: 25842826, member: 20145"]
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? ...

ToddsterPatriot, your opinion of my conclusions are not supported by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office’s reports. Try again?
Respectfully, Supposn

your opinion of my conclusions are not supported by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office’s reports.

Your "conclusion", "the minimum wage substantially effects 32% of USA's employees' rates"

is nowhere to be found in any CBO report you're linked. Maybe there is a link you haven't posted yet?

 

[Supposn]

your opinion of my conclusions are not supported by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office’s reports.

Your "conclusion", "the minimum wage substantially effects 32% of USA's employees' rates"
is nowhere to be found in any CBO report you're linked. Maybe there is a link you haven't posted yet?

ToddsterPatiot, you quoted me correctly. Maybe you don’t understand the words?
I did not state that my conclusions are based upon one individual explicit Congressional Budget office’s statement, but they are supported by the CBO’s reports regarding the federal minimum wage rate.
Respectfully, Supposn

Referring 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 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 twice 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: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55681 :
" Aspects of the policy options: … CBO projects that in 2025, the poverty threshold (in 2018 dollars) will be $20,480 for a family of three and $26,330 for a family of four".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

your opinion of my conclusions are not supported by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office’s reports.

Your "conclusion", "the minimum wage substantially effects 32% of USA's employees' rates"
is nowhere to be found in any CBO report you're linked. Maybe there is a link you haven't posted yet?

ToddsterPatiot, you quoted me correctly. Maybe you don’t understand the words?
I did not state that my conclusions are based upon one individual explicit Congressional Budget office’s statement, but they are supported by the CBO’s reports regarding the federal minimum wage rate.
Respectfully, Supposn

Referring 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 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 twice 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: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55681 :
" Aspects of the policy options: … CBO projects that in 2025, the poverty threshold (in 2018 dollars) will be $20,480 for a family of three and $26,330 for a family of four".

The fact that the CBO says "32% of workers are in the low wage bracket" does not support your claim that "the minimum wage substantially effects 32% of USA's employees' rates"

 

[Supposn]

The fact that the CBO says "32% of workers are in the low wage bracket" does not support your claim that "the minimum wage substantially effects 32% of USA's employees' rates"

ToddsterPatriot, The text and graphs of Congressional Budget Office’s, (i.e. CBO’s) reports regarding federal minimum wage rate’s support but implicitly understate the extents of minimum wage rate’s proportional contributions to the wages and wage rates of employees earning within the low-wage bracket of rates and of wages.

Families net increases of incomes due to the minimum rate are reported, but CBO’s reports do not indicate the portions of those family’s increased incomes due to replacements of public assistance and unemployment insurance by aggregate greater wage incomes.
Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, minimum wage rate’s benefits to jobs’ rates are inversely related to the differences between the minimum and the jobs’ rates. Families with greater portions of their incomes derived from rates within the low-rate bracket of wage rates, more benefit from the minimum wage rate. The minimum wage rate does not reduce incomes derived from wages.

To the extent of its purchasing power, the federal minimum wage rate reduces the incidences and extents of poverty among USA’s working-poor. …

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The fact that the CBO says "32% of workers are in the low wage bracket" does not support your claim that "the minimum wage substantially effects 32% of USA's employees' rates"

ToddsterPatriot, The text and graphs of Congressional Budget Office’s, (i.e. CBO’s) reports regarding federal minimum wage rate’s support but implicitly understate the extents of minimum wage rate’s proportional contributions to the wages and wage rates of employees earning within the low-wage bracket of rates and of wages.

Families net increases of incomes due to the minimum rate are reported, but CBO’s reports do not indicate the portions of those family’s increased incomes due to replacements of public assistance and unemployment insurance by aggregate greater wage incomes.
Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, minimum wage rate’s benefits to jobs’ rates are inversely related to the differences between the minimum and the jobs’ rates. Families with greater portions of their incomes derived from rates within the low-rate bracket of wage rates, more benefit from the minimum wage rate. The minimum wage rate does not reduce incomes derived from wages.

To the extent of its purchasing power, the federal minimum wage rate reduces the incidences and extents of poverty among USA’s working-poor. …

Yes, your unsupported feelings are very convincing.

 

[esalla]

My minimum wage is fifty an hour for my trade.

Is that the going blow job rate

 

[danielpalos]

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

Since Government can "move the goal posts to a new fixed Standard", a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage can be an Institutional means for an upward pressure on wages, to hopefully beat inflation on that same Institutional basis.

 

[Supposn]

Since Government can "move the goal posts to a new fixed Standard", a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage can be an Institutional means for an upward pressure on wages, to hopefully beat inflation on that same Institutional basis.

DanielPalos, I wonder why those more to the left of our nation’s political spectrum speak, write, and vote against what they consider to be their own aspirations?

When advocating increasing the minimum rate to achieve $15 per hour, rather than a defined extent of the rate’s value in terms of its purchasing power, they grant those opposed to the minimum Rate to delay increases, until when the minimum’s finally increased to $15 per hour, $ 15 dollars are of much lesser worth than they were yesterday.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[danielpalos]

Since Government can "move the goal posts to a new fixed Standard", a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage can be an Institutional means for an upward pressure on wages, to hopefully beat inflation on that same Institutional basis.

DanielPalos, I wonder why those more to the left of our nation’s political spectrum speak, write, and vote against what they consider to be their own aspirations?

When advocating increasing the minimum rate to achieve $15 per hour, rather than a defined extent of the rate’s value in terms of its purchasing power, they grant those opposed to the minimum Rate to delay increases, until when the minimum’s finally increased to $15 per hour, $ 15 dollars are of much lesser worth than they were yesterday.
Respectfully, Supposn

That is politics. It takes a majority to get things done. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage could have happened years ago.

Indexing the minimum wage to inflation is what can help automate the process for automatic stabilization of our economy.

 

[Supposn]

That is politics. It takes a majority to get things done. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage could have happened years ago.
Indexing the minimum wage to inflation is what can help automate the process for automatic stabilization of our economy.

DanielPalos, Samuel Gompers, [first president of the American Federation of Labor, (i.e. AFL)], was confronted by someone demanding to know “What does labor want”? I appreciate his answer reflecting labor’s similarity to the majority of other individual or groups of peoples; Gompers replied with one word, “MORE”!

President Obama is a decent reasonable man, he served our nation well. He advocated gradual increasing the minimum to reach a $15 per hour rate and thereafter monitoring and annually retaining that purchasing power.

When the opposition party declared and then demonstrated their intention of no mutual compromising with the White House, not even cooperate with enacting rules and regulations that they have been on record to having advocated, President Obama should have reconciled to their decisions and accept it as an opportunity to establish an elections issue for an additionally greater improvement of our economy. He should have strived for no less than 125% of February-1968 federal minimum rate’s purchasing power. When he failed to do so, I changed my then lifetime registration as a Democrat, and registered as a Green Party voter.

Advocating for anything less than 125% of February-1968 purchasing power, ensures that it will achieve no more, but less than 125% of that purchasing power. In October 2029, $15 was equivalent to only 12.18/15 = 81.2% of 125% of February-1968 purchasing power.
Until the day of the minimum rate’s inventible increase, we can expect the purchasing power of $15 to be continuously lesser than that value. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[danielpalos]

That is politics. It takes a majority to get things done. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage could have happened years ago.
Indexing the minimum wage to inflation is what can help automate the process for automatic stabilization of our economy.

DanielPalos, Samuel Gompers, [first president of the American Federation of Labor, (i.e. AFL)], was confronted by someone demanding to know “What does labor want”? I appreciate his answer reflecting labor’s similarity to the majority of other individual or groups of peoples; Gompers replied with one word, “MORE”!

President Obama is a decent reasonable man, he served our nation well. He advocated gradual increasing the minimum to reach a $15 per hour rate and thereafter monitoring and annually retaining that purchasing power.

When the opposition party declared and then demonstrated their intention of no mutual compromising with the White House, not even cooperate with enacting rules and regulations that they have been on record to having advocated, President Obama should have reconciled to their decisions and accept it as an opportunity to establish an elections issue for an additionally greater improvement of our economy. He should have strived for no less than 125% of February-1968 federal minimum rate’s purchasing power. When he failed to do so, I changed my then lifetime registration as a Democrat, and registered as a Green Party voter.

Advocating for anything less than 125% of February-1968 purchasing power, ensures that it will achieve no more, but less than 125% of that purchasing power. In October 2029, $15 was equivalent to only 12.18/15 = 81.2% of 125% of February-1968 purchasing power.
Until the day of the minimum rate’s inevitable increase, we can expect the purchasing power of $15 to be continuously lesser than that value. Respectfully, Supposn

Yet, right wingers advocate for no statutory minimum wage at all; just like in the good old days.

Some on the left are still advocating for equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

 

[Supposn]

Yet, right wingers advocate for no statutory minimum wage at all; just like in the good old days.

Some on the left are still advocating for equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

DanielPalos, regarding employment ‘at will”; excerpted from
At-will employment - Wikipedia :
“In U.S. labor law, at-will employment is an employer's ability to dismiss an employee for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning,[1] as long as the reason is not illegal (e.g. firing because of the employee's race, religion or sexuality). When an employee is acknowledged as being hired "at will," courts deny the employee any claim for loss resulting from the dismissal. The rule is justified by its proponents on the basis that an employee may be similarly entitled to leave his or her job without reason or warning.[2] The practice is seen as unjust by those who view the employment relationship as characterized by inequality of bargaining power [3] “.
[ (3) See Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915) (Holmes, J., dissenting)].

Your contention of a similar “at will” right to unemployment compensation makes no sense.
/////////////

Minimum wage rate laws are justified due to their purpose and extents of their purchasing powers and enforcements’ enabling them to reduce incidences and extents of poverty among the working-poor and their dependents.
Additionally, they’re justified by the afore mentioned employers’ advantageous negotiating positions (which are additionally enhanced by many state’s anti-labor laws).
The federal minimum wage rate is not among primary causes of U.S. dollar’s rates of inflation, but it’s certainly a victim of that inflation. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[danielpalos]

Yet, right wingers advocate for no statutory minimum wage at all; just like in the good old days.

Some on the left are still advocating for equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

DanielPalos, regarding employment ‘at will”; excerpted from
At-will employment - Wikipedia :
“In U.S. labor law, at-will employment is an employer's ability to dismiss an employee for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning,[1] as long as the reason is not illegal (e.g. firing because of the employee's race, religion or sexuality). When an employee is acknowledged as being hired "at will," courts deny the employee any claim for loss resulting from the dismissal. The rule is justified by its proponents on the basis that an employee may be similarly entitled to leave his or her job without reason or warning.[2] The practice is seen as unjust by those who view the employment relationship as characterized by inequality of bargaining power [3] “.
[ (3) See Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915) (Holmes, J., dissenting)].

Your contention of a similar “at will” right to unemployment compensation makes no sense.
/////////////

Minimum wage rate laws are justified due to their purpose and extents of their purchasing powers and enforcements’ enabling them to reduce incidences and extents of poverty among the working-poor and their dependents.
Additionally, they’re justified by the afore mentioned employers’ advantageous negotiating positions (which are additionally enhanced by many state’s anti-labor laws).
The federal minimum wage rate is not among primary causes of U.S. dollar’s rates of inflation, but it’s certainly a victim of that inflation. Respectfully, Supposn

What part of, at the will of either party, makes no sense?

 

[Supposn]

What part of, at the will of either party, makes no sense?

DanielPalos, within everyone of USA’s 50 states, state laws and regulations under the auspices of federal law, govern their states unemployment insurance regulations.
It’s the states, not the federal government’s money that primarily fund any shortfall of their unemployment insurance funding.

Within 50 states,, quitting your job because an employee is dissatified, is not sufficient, for unemployment eligibility; (An employee can refuse to work under conditions or restrictions which are contrary to federal or states’ laws and regulations). “At will resignation” of employment doesn't qualify for any USA state’s unemployment insurance benefits.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What part of, at the will of either party, makes no sense?

DanielPalos, within everyone of USA’s 50 states, state laws and regulations under the auspices of federal law, govern their states unemployment insurance regulations.
It’s the states, not the federal government’s money that primarily fund any shortfall of their unemployment insurance funding.

Within 50 states,, quitting your job because an employee is dissatified, is not sufficient, for unemployment eligibility; (An employee can refuse to work under conditions or restrictions which are contrary to federal or states’ laws and regulations). “At will resignation” of employment doesn't qualify for any USA state’s unemployment insurance benefits.
Respectfully, Supposn

Good old Dan wants to get paid for quitting (or never even holding) a job.

His ideas are even more unrealistic than your ideas.

 

[HenryBHough]

I may tip-toe out of retirement in January.

My "outdated" skills are becoming more scarce by the day - my "LinkedIn" profile used to see one or two hits a month. Now it's up to six a day as the number of people who can deal with old broadcast equipment dwindles. Problem is that the mega-media outfits have their own "flying squads" and the remaining independent operators are (so far) unwilling to pay. I've kept them at bay with a high hourly rate (plus travel and living expenses) but recently there have been some serious offers. Perhaps a $500/hr 8hr minimum might be sufficient. But at that rate I'd be sore tempted to take on a case or two. But only with a cash deposit.

I chuckle to think that at one day those same skills were worth only minimum wage!

 

[Supposn]

The fact that the CBO says "32% of workers are in the low wage bracket" does not support your claim that "the minimum wage substantially effects 32% of USA's employees' rates"

ToddsterPatriot,:

Andylusion, U.S. federal law prohibits paying less than the applicable federal minimum rate and although it does not determine wage differentials, (due to employer’s common practices) it does affect other wage rates, but it doesn’t affect them all equally. The extents of its effects are inversely related to the difference between the minimum and jobs’ rates; (i.e. it’s of greater benefit to lower, and of lesser benefit to higher wage rates). …

All these concepts are substantially supported by the underlying statistic provided by the Congressional Budget Office, (i.e. CBO), supporting their charts and graphs which appear throughout their reports regarding the federal minimum wage rate.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All these concepts are substantially supported by the underlying statistic provided by the Congressional Budget Office,

You're manufacturing data not provided by the CBO.