Minimum wage rate and labors’ market prices.

OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
102
Points
85
ToddsterPatriot, Congressional Budget Office’s, (i.e. CBO’s) projected a range of 5.2% to 3.4% increase of incomes in 2025 due to the proposed increases of the federal minimum wage rate, for families of incomes less than three times their family sizes’ poverty thresholds. Those increases would more or less entirely be due to only increases of low-income wages and possibly some portions of unemployment insurance benefits reflected within those total incomes.

[Unemployment benefits are the net consequences of wage income losses. Minimum wage rate increases after 2017 couldn’t by 2025, even indirectly affect much other than low-wage rate incomes and unemployment benefits.

Any other benefits that could be possibly be affected by increases of the federal minimum wage rate, (such as pensions, and social security retirement or disability benefits), are not fully reflected within those families’ total incomes until decades after those minimum rate increases were enacted].

For those families’ total incomes to be increased by a range of 5.2% by 2025, If their low-wage rate incomes and unemployment benefits were:
  • Net 70% of their 2017 total incomes; that segment of their incomes would have to increase by 50%; (0.7) X = 1.052, X; (1.051 / 0.70) = 1.50
  • Net 80% of their 2017 total incomes; that segment of their incomes would have to increase by over 30%; (0.8) X = 1.052, X; (1.051 / 0.8) > 1.31
  • Net 90% of their 2017 total incomes; that segment of their incomes would have to increase by over 16%; (0.9) X = 1.052, X; (1.051 / 0.9) > 1.162
In 2025, what portion of families of incomes below the poverty threshold, would be due to other than low-wage rates or unemployment benefits?; (i.e. what portion of their total incomes would be due to pensions or social security , or long term disability, or public assistance, or educational assistance, or trusts, or veteran payments, survivor benefits, alimony, child support or other assistances from outside of the families’ households)?

For 2025 families if total incomes above the poverty thresholds, but less than three times their family sizes’ poverty thresholds, somewhat similar statistical questions should be applied.
Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
62,214
Reaction score
11,215
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
ToddsterPatriot, Congressional Budget Office’s, (i.e. CBO’s) projected a range of 5.2% to 3.4% increase of incomes in 2025 due to the proposed increases of the federal minimum wage rate, for families of incomes less than three times their family sizes’ poverty thresholds. Those increases would more or less entirely be due to only increases of low-income wages and possibly some portions of unemployment insurance benefits reflected within those total incomes.

[Unemployment benefits are the net consequences of wage income losses. Minimum wage rate increases after 2017 couldn’t by 2025, even indirectly affect much other than low-wage rate incomes and unemployment benefits.

Any other benefits that could be possibly be affected by increases of the federal minimum wage rate, (such as pensions, and social security retirement or disability benefits), are not fully reflected within those families’ total incomes until decades after those minimum rate increases were enacted].

For those families’ total incomes to be increased by a range of 5.2% by 2025, If their low-wage rate incomes and unemployment benefits were:
  • Net 70% of their 2017 total incomes; that segment of their incomes would have to increase by 50%; (0.7) X = 1.052, X; (1.051 / 0.70) = 1.50
  • Net 80% of their 2017 total incomes; that segment of their incomes would have to increase by over 30%; (0.8) X = 1.052, X; (1.051 / 0.8) > 1.31
  • Net 90% of their 2017 total incomes; that segment of their incomes would have to increase by over 16%; (0.9) X = 1.052, X; (1.051 / 0.9) > 1.162
In 2025, what portion of families of incomes below the poverty threshold, would be due to other than low-wage rates or unemployment benefits?; (i.e. what portion of their total incomes would be due to pensions or social security , or long term disability, or public assistance, or educational assistance, or trusts, or veteran payments, survivor benefits, alimony, child support or other assistances from outside of the families’ households)?

For 2025 families if total incomes above the poverty thresholds, but less than three times their family sizes’ poverty thresholds, somewhat similar statistical questions should be applied.
Respectfully, Supposn
Your bad math is going to make me cry again.

For those families’ total incomes to be increased by a range of 5.2% by 2025, If their low-wage rate incomes and unemployment benefits were:
  • Net 70% of their 2017 total incomes; that segment of their incomes would have to increase by 50%; (0.7) X = 1.052, X; (1.051 / 0.70) = 1.50
Why is the other 30% ignored in your calculation?
Did the other 30% go away for some reason? Why?
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
102
Points
85
... Why is the other 30% ignored in your calculation? Did the other 30% go away for some reason? Why?
Toddsterpatriot, you don’t understand English?
To whatever extent those families’ projected 2025 incomes were not more or less attributable to low-wage rate incomes or unemployment benefits based low-wage rate incomes. Those other income sources could not be substantially affected by increases of federal minimum wage rate enacted after 2017.
Not presuming to know what whatever that extent would be, I provided examples of consequences if those extent would be 10%, or 20%, or 30% of those families total 2025 incomes. Respectfully, Supposn
ToddsterPatriot, Congressional Budget Office’s, (i.e. CBO’s) projected a range of 5.2% to 3.4% of incomes in 2025 due to the proposed increases of the federal minimum wage rate, for families of incomes less than three times their family sizes’ poverty thresholds. Those increases would more or less entirely be due to only increases of low-income wages and possibly some portions of unemployment insurance benefits reflected within those total incomes.

[Unemployment benefits are the net consequences of wage income losses. Minimum wage rate increases after 2017 couldn’t by 2025, even indirectly affect much other than low-wage rate incomes and unemployment benefits.

Any other benefits that could be possibly be affected by increases of the federal minimum wage rate, (such as pensions, and social security retirement or disability benefits), are not fully reflected within those families’ total incomes until decades after those minimum rate increases were enacted]. ...
 

beagle9

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
26,001
Reaction score
4,886
Points
280
...if you are a dumbass, you don't deserve a minimum wage--you can give stupid people a $50 minimum wage and they will still be poor
It's true, where as the government can never fix the human aspect of people using their freedom of choice whether it is right or wrong in life. Just look at the lottery winners who lost everything for example. We should have a merit based society based on character with emergency provisions just to keep dummy's from starving to death, but that's it. This is what worked forever in this country until Democrat's went stupid. Now we got some serious issues caused by these damned globalist loving corporate loving Demoncrat's. Corporations have bought into the lies, because they are looking to get labor for nothing, and they are loving socialism at the labor levels just for that reason. Merit based system's that lift all boats who are willing to apply themselves in a hard-working good character sort of way, are hated by the globalist whom want American labor brought to it's knee's in favor of socialism. Wake up America!
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
60,661
Reaction score
2,416
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
...if you are a dumbass, you don't deserve a minimum wage--you can give stupid people a $50 minimum wage and they will still be poor
It's true, where as the government can never fix the human aspect of people using their freedom of choice whether it is right or wrong in life. Just look at the lottery winners who lost everything for example. We should have a merit based society based on character with emergency provisions just to keep dummy's from starving to death, but that's it. This is what worked forever in this country until Democrat's went stupid. Now we got some serious issues caused by these damned globalist loving corporate loving Demoncrat's. Corporations have bought into the lies, because they are looking to get labor for nothing, and they are loving socialism at the labor levels just for that reason. Merit based system's that lift all boats who are willing to apply themselves in a hard-working good character sort of way, are hated by the globalist whom want American labor brought to it's knee's in favor of socialism. Wake up America!
why blame the left. only the right wing want money and labor for nothing.
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
102
Points
85
I understand English, it's your math and muddled examples that make no sense.
The family in your examples had income and unemployment benefits?
ToddsterPatriot, Congressional Budget office’s reports consider low-wage rate incomes and low wage employment insurance benefits dependent upon prior low-wage rate incomes to be among total family incomes in comparison to their families’ poverty thresholds, and they are the only portions of families’ 2025 projected incomes that could be substantially affected by minimum rate increases enacted after 2017.

You‘re not pretending? You are foolish and/or ignorant?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
62,214
Reaction score
11,215
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
I understand English, it's your math and muddled examples that make no sense.
The family in your examples had income and unemployment benefits?
ToddsterPatriot, Congressional Budget office’s reports consider low-wage rate incomes and low wage employment insurance benefits dependent upon prior low-wage rate incomes to be among total family incomes in comparison to their families’ poverty thresholds, and they are the only portions of families’ 2025 projected incomes that could be substantially affected by minimum rate increases enacted after 2017.

You‘re not pretending? You are foolish and/or ignorant?
I can't pretend to understand your gibberish.
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
102
Points
85
It's true, where as the government can never fix the human aspect of people using their freedom of choice whether it is right or wrong in life. Just look at the lottery winners who lost everything for example. We should have a merit based society based on character with emergency provisions just to keep dummy's from starving to death, but that's it. This is what worked forever in this country until Democrat's went stupid. Now we got some serious issues caused by these damned globalist loving corporate loving Demoncrat's. Corporations have bought into the lies, because they are looking to get labor for nothing, and they are loving socialism at the labor levels just for that reason. Merit based system's that lift all boats who are willing to apply themselves in a hard-working good character sort of way, are hated by the globalist whom want American labor brought to it's knee's in favor of socialism. Wake up America!
Beagle9, legislative bodies of almost all, (if not all) the world’s major economy nations, (regardless of their economic systems), have provisions for, or something effectively serving the purposes of our federal minimum wage rate laws.
To the extent of its purchasing power, our federal minimum wage rate reduces incidences and extent of poverty among our nation’s working-poor.

Those governments that do not directly enforce such laws and regulations, legally support quasi-government organizations enforcement of such regulations. All, or almost all of the world’s leading economic nations’ legislative bodies, (including our United States Congress), now directly support provisions for, or something effectively serving the purposes of our federal minimum wage rate laws.
Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
102
Points
85
...if you are a dumbass, you don't deserve a minimum wage--you can give stupid people a $50 minimum wage and they will still be poor
It's true, where as the government can never fix the human aspect of people using their freedom of choice whether it is right or wrong in life. Just look at the lottery winners who lost everything for example. We should have a merit based society based on character with emergency provisions just to keep dummy's from starving to death, but that's it. This is what worked forever in this country until Democrat's went stupid. Now we got some serious issues caused by these damned globalist loving corporate loving Demoncrat's. Corporations have bought into the lies, because they are looking to get labor for nothing, and they are loving socialism at the labor levels just for that reason. Merit based system's that lift all boats who are willing to apply themselves in a hard-working good character sort of way, are hated by the globalist whom want American labor brought to it's knee's in favor of socialism. Wake up America!
Beagle9, I’m among the proponents for gradually increasing the federal minimum wage rate until it achieves no less than 125% OF ITS February-1968 peak purchasing power: thereafter it should be annually monitoring and updated to retain no less than that value.

To the extent of its purchasing power, our federal minimum wage rate reduces incidences and extent of poverty among our nation’s working-poor. That’s its purpose and justification.
Our minimum wage laws are not to any effective extent contrary to what you expressed as your asperations for our United States of America. Respectfully, Supposn
 

beagle9

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
26,001
Reaction score
4,886
Points
280
We should be raising the minimum wage to generate more tax revenue anyway. If even the Poor pay their share of taxes the Rich won't have anything to complain about and we can abolish Tax Cut economics as the worth-less policy it really is.
You definitely voted for Briben didn't you ?? Good grief.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
62,214
Reaction score
11,215
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
We should be raising the minimum wage to generate more tax revenue anyway. If even the Poor pay their share of taxes the Rich won't have anything to complain about and we can abolish Tax Cut economics as the worth-less policy it really is.
You definitely voted for Briben didn't you ?? Good grief.
He still doesn't understand that workers earning more at a 12% tax rate would reduce tax revenues from corporations paying at a 21% rate. It would reduce total tax revenues.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
62,214
Reaction score
11,215
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
ToddsterPatriot, Congressional Budget Office’s, (i.e. CBO’s) projected a range of 5.2% to 3.4% increase of incomes in 2025 due to the proposed increases of the federal minimum wage rate, for families of incomes less than three times their family sizes’ poverty thresholds. Those increases would more or less entirely be due to only increases of low-income wages and possibly some portions of unemployment insurance benefits reflected within those total incomes.

[Unemployment benefits are the net consequences of wage income losses. Minimum wage rate increases after 2017 couldn’t by 2025, even indirectly affect much other than low-wage rate incomes and unemployment benefits.

Any other benefits that could be possibly be affected by increases of the federal minimum wage rate, (such as pensions, and social security retirement or disability benefits), are not fully reflected within those families’ total incomes until decades after those minimum rate increases were enacted].

For those families’ total incomes to be increased by a range of 5.2% by 2025, If their low-wage rate incomes and unemployment benefits were:
  • Net 70% of their 2017 total incomes; that segment of their incomes would have to increase by 50%; (0.7) X = 1.052, X; (1.051 / 0.70) = 1.50
  • Net 80% of their 2017 total incomes; that segment of their incomes would have to increase by over 30%; (0.8) X = 1.052, X; (1.051 / 0.8) > 1.31
  • Net 90% of their 2017 total incomes; that segment of their incomes would have to increase by over 16%; (0.9) X = 1.052, X; (1.051 / 0.9) > 1.162
In 2025, what portion of families of incomes below the poverty threshold, would be due to other than low-wage rates or unemployment benefits?; (i.e. what portion of their total incomes would be due to pensions or social security , or long term disability, or public assistance, or educational assistance, or trusts, or veteran payments, survivor benefits, alimony, child support or other assistances from outside of the families’ households)?

For 2025 families if total incomes above the poverty thresholds, but less than three times their family sizes’ poverty thresholds, somewhat similar statistical questions should be applied.
Respectfully, Supposn
Let's try to use real numbers to better illustrate your errors.

For those families’ total incomes to be increased by a range of 5.2% by 2025, If their low-wage rate incomes and unemployment benefits were:
  • Net 70% of their 2017 total incomes; that segment of their incomes would have to increase by 50%; (0.7) X = 1.052, X; (1.051 / 0.70) = 1.50

Assume total 2017 monthly income is $1000. In your first example, "low-wage rate incomes and unemployment benefits" were 70% of that or $700 a month. The other 30%, $300, is child support or SSI.

In your first example, incomes and unemployment benefits increased by 50% to $1050.
The other 30% would be unchanged at $300.
New before-tax family cash income is $1050 + $300 = $1350.

$1350 is a 35% increase, not a 5.2% increase.

  • Net 80% of their 2017 total incomes; that segment of their incomes would have to increase by over 30%; (0.8) X = 1.052, X; (1.051 / 0.8) > 1.31
In your second example, "low-wage rate incomes and unemployment benefits" were 80% of that or $800 a month. The other 20%, $200, is child support or SSI.

In your second example, incomes and unemployment benefits increased by 31% to $1048.
The other 20% would be unchanged at $200.
New before-tax family cash income is $1048 + $200 = $1248.

$1248 is a 24.8% increase, not a 5.2% increase.

See what I mean about your math and your muddled examples?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
60,661
Reaction score
2,416
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
We should be raising the minimum wage to generate more tax revenue anyway. If even the Poor pay their share of taxes the Rich won't have anything to complain about and we can abolish Tax Cut economics as the worth-less policy it really is.
You definitely voted for Briben didn't you ?? Good grief.
lol. How can you tell, my valid argument?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
60,661
Reaction score
2,416
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
We should be raising the minimum wage to generate more tax revenue anyway. If even the Poor pay their share of taxes the Rich won't have anything to complain about and we can abolish Tax Cut economics as the worth-less policy it really is.
You definitely voted for Briben didn't you ?? Good grief.
He still doesn't understand that workers earning more at a 12% tax rate would reduce tax revenues from corporations paying at a 21% rate. It would reduce total tax revenues.
No, it would not. Labor is expensed and reduces taxable potential profit.
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
102
Points
85
Let's try to use real numbers to better illustrate your errors. ... See what I mean about your math and your muddled examples?
Toddsterpatriot, let's try to use real numbers to better illustrate your errors.
For 2017 families’ incomes below their families’ poverty thresholds the Congressional Budget office attributes only 5.2% increases of their total incomes to increases of minimum wage rates between New-Year’s eve 2017 and the New-Year’s day, 2026. (1,0,520/10,000) = 1.0520; (all incomes and benefits are adjusted to reflect 2018 valued U.S. dollars).

If their 2017 low-wage rate incomes and unemployment benefits were 70% of $10,000, and their $3,000 of none low-wage rate incomes and other benefits were in 2025 replaced by low-wage-rate income and benefits, those incomes would have increased by were replaced by wage incomes and unemployment benefits for a total of $10,520 in the year 2025, the families wage and unemployment benefits would have increased by ($10,520 / $7,000) = 1.517 > 50% increase of wages and unemployment benefits.

[Only 2025 increases of low wage rate incomes and unemployment insurance could be substantially due to increases of the federal minimum wage rate enacted after 2017. It requires decades before Social Security, and/or pensions, and/or or long-term disability benefits to be substantially increased due to be enactments of federal minimum wage rate's increases of purchasing power],

What’s your point? See what I mean about your math and your muddled examples? Respectfully, Supposn
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
62,214
Reaction score
11,215
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
Let's try to use real numbers to better illustrate your errors. ... See what I mean about your math and your muddled examples?
Toddsterpatriot, let's try to use real numbers to better illustrate your errors.
For 2017 families’ incomes below their families’ poverty thresholds the Congressional Budget office attributes only 5.2% increases of their total incomes to increases of minimum wage rates between New-Year’s eve 2017 and the New-Year’s day, 2026. (1,0,520/10,000) = 1.0520; (all incomes and benefits are adjusted to reflect 2018 valued U.S. dollars).

If their 2017 low-wage rate incomes and unemployment benefits were 70% of $10,000, and their $3,000 of none low-wage rate incomes and other benefits were in 2025 replaced by low-wage-rate income and benefits, those incomes would have increased by were replaced by wage incomes and unemployment benefits for a total of $10,520 in the year 2025, the families wage and unemployment benefits would have increased by ($10,520 / $7,000) = 1.517 > 50% increase of wages and unemployment benefits.

[Only 2025 increases of low wage rate incomes and unemployment insurance could be substantially due to increases of the federal minimum wage rate enacted after 2017. It requires decades before Social Security, and/or pensions, and/or or long-term disability benefits to be substantially increased due to be enactments of federal minimum wage rate's increases of purchasing power],

What’s your point? See what I mean about your math and your muddled examples? Respectfully, Supposn
the Congressional Budget office attributes only 5.2% increases of their total incomes to increases of minimum wage rates between New-Year’s eve 2017 and the New-Year’s day, 2026. (1,0,520/10,000) = 1.0520;

Minimum wage more than doubles but their cash income only increases 5.2%? Weird.

Let's get back to your idiocy.

Tell me more about that 50% increase in income.....

(0.7) X = 1.052, X; (1.051 / 0.70) = 1.50

Hilarious! You really shouldn't try to do math, you're so bad at it.

Why is the other 30% ignored in your calculation?
Did the other 30% go away for some reason? Why?

LOL!

their $3,000 of none low-wage rate incomes and other benefits were in 2025 replaced by low-wage-rate income and benefits,

Why would the $3000 be replaced? Did the CBO make that claim....or just you?
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
102
Points
85
... Why would the $3000, [30% of $1,000] be replaced? Did the CBO make that claim....or just you?
ToddsterPatriot, Among families of incomes below their poverty threshold levels, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, (i.e. CBO) attributes only a 5.2% increase of such families total incomes between 2017 and the end of 2025, to increases of the federal minimum wage rate that were to be enacted within that duration of years.

Federal minimum wage rate’s enacted increases cannot substantially affect any other than low-wage rate incomes and unemployment benefits due to such low-wage rate incomes, that occurred during those duration of years. So if due to increases of the federal minimum wage rate, there’s only a 5.2% increase of total incomes between 2017 and the end of 20225, the portion of total incomes being increased is in question. I do not presume to know what portion of those families’ 2017 total incomes were derived from low-wage rate earnings or unemployment benefits due to those earnings. That’s why I provided three examples for 70%, or 80%, or 90% of the totals.

[It requires decades before newly enacted minimum rate increases can substantially affect social security, pensions, or other long-term disability or retirement incomes or benefits.]

If due to the minimum wage rate only 5.2% of those families’ aggregate total incomes were due to the federal minimum rate’s increases enacted between 2017 and 2025, they must referring to only increases of incomes and benefits derived from low wage rate earnings and unemployment benefits derived from those earnings. Respectfully, Supposn
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top