danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #221
With what? You need more than Your currently unsubstantiated opinion.I'm proving I know more than you.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
With what? You need more than Your currently unsubstantiated opinion.I'm proving I know more than you.
With what? You need more than Your currently unsubstantiated opinion.I'm proving I know more than you.
ToddsterPatriot, what you describe as MY suggestions or claims are all based upon implications derived from U.S. Congressional Budget office’s projections.You find fault with the federal minimum wage rate because it doesn’t sufficiently increase incomes of families with working-poor members.
I find fault with it because it reduces employment and makes it more difficult for
people at the bottom of the economy to start the climb up the ladder.
Your suggested remedy to eliminate minimum wage laws would consequentially reduce purchasing powers of the working-poor by extents ranging from critical to substantial portions of their wage incomes.
I suggest your claim is wrong.
What math? The article I cited stated around eighteen dollars an hour by 2025.With what? You need more than Your currently unsubstantiated opinion.I'm proving I know more than you.
I understand the math in my previous posts was too complex for you.
Not with our current requirement to have to work or not be able to collect unemployment benefits. A legacy from black codes?People should be free to work for anyone, for any price they can get. They shouldn't be prevented from working just because someone else thinks they're not getting paid enough.
ToddsterPatriot, what you describe as MY suggestions or claims are all based upon implications derived from U.S. Congressional Budget office’s projections.You find fault with the federal minimum wage rate because it doesn’t sufficiently increase incomes of families with working-poor members.
I find fault with it because it reduces employment and makes it more difficult for
people at the bottom of the economy to start the climb up the ladder.
Your suggested remedy to eliminate minimum wage laws would consequentially reduce purchasing powers of the working-poor by extents ranging from critical to substantial portions of their wage incomes.
I suggest your claim is wrong.
You quote single statements out of context of other pertinent texts and graphs within CBO’s reports regarding the federal minimum wage rate. CBO’s projected scenario’s greatly differ from those you paint. Respectfully, Supposn
DBlack, people are generally free to work for anyone, for any price. (There are non-competitive or confidentiality provisions within some employment contracts).People should be free to work for anyone, for any price they can get. They shouldn't be prevented from working just because someone else thinks they're not getting paid enough.
Someone else? Are you referring to the U.S. Congress that passed the federal minimum wage rate, or the U.S. President that signed the rate increase act so it could be enacted?
Respectfully, Supposn
DBlack, your opinion differs from most USA voters. Your opinion additionally differs from the members of the U.S. Congress and the presidents that passed and enacted the federal acts that established or increased federal minimum wage rates.I'm referring to anyone other than the employer and the employee. The compensation they both agree to is no one else's business.Someone else? Are you referring to the U.S. Congress that passed the federal minimum wage rate, or the U.S. President that signed the rate increase act so it could be enacted? Respectfully, Supposn
ToddsterPatriot, the Congressional Budget office, (CBO) projects $19 of 2018 purchasing power valued dollars as being the top of the low-rate wage bracket in 2025, if the federal minimum wage rate, (FMWR) is then (in 2025) $15 per hour.
In my opinion the CBO projection of $19 describes a too narrow a bracket of wage rates. (i.e. $19 under-states the top of that that LOWEST-RATE bracket of wage rates).
If and when a FMWR of $15 per hour is ever achieved, $19 should not be described as the top of the LOW, but rather the top of the LOWEST bracket of rates that are most critically affected by the FMWR.
The LOW-rate bracket should be those wage rates affected by the FMWR to the extents ranging from critical to substantial portions of jobs’ rates. The top of that LOW-rate bracket of wage rates is higher than $19 expressed in dollars’ of 2018 valued purchasing power regardless of whatever is the then current FMWR. Respectfully, Supposn
What math? The article I cited stated around eighteen dollars an hour by 2025.With what? You need more than Your currently unsubstantiated opinion.I'm proving I know more than you.
I understand the math in my previous posts was too complex for you.
Yes, that's obvious.DBlack, your opinion differs from most USA voters.I'm referring to anyone other than the employer and the employee. The compensation they both agree to is no one else's business.Someone else? Are you referring to the U.S. Congress that passed the federal minimum wage rate, or the U.S. President that signed the rate increase act so it could be enacted? Respectfully, Supposn
Yep. Right again. Two in a row! Congrats.Your opinion additionally differs from the members of the U.S. Congress and the presidents that passed and enacted the federal acts that established or increased federal minimum wage rates.
They can be "concerned" all they want, but they have no right to bully others in the name of their concerns.Are you also contending we voters should not be concerned regarding our nation’s policies and/or our government should by unconcerned regarding our nation’s economic and social well-being? Respectfully, Supposn
ToddsterPatriot, you didn’t intentionally not include the last qualifying phrase of my sentence you quoted?the Congressional Budget office, (CBO) projects $19 of 2018 purchasing power valued dollars as being the top of the low-rate wage bracket in 2025,
Where is the definition of "low-rate wage bracket"? ...
You correctly pointed out my error and the consequential purpose of my prior post addressed to you.ToddsterPatriot, the Congressional Budget office, (CBO) projects $19 of 2018 purchasing power valued dollars as being the top of the low-rate wage bracket in 2025, if the federal minimum wage rate, (FMWR) is then (in 2025) $15 per hour. …
ToddsterPatriot, you didn’t intentionally not include the last qualifying phrase of my sentence you quoted?the Congressional Budget office, (CBO) projects $19 of 2018 purchasing power valued dollars as being the top of the low-rate wage bracket in 2025,
Where is the definition of "low-rate wage bracket"? ...You correctly pointed out my error and the consequential purpose of my prior post addressed to you.ToddsterPatriot, the Congressional Budget office, (CBO) projects $19 of 2018 purchasing power valued dollars as being the top of the low-rate wage bracket in 2025, if the federal minimum wage rate, (FMWR) is then (in 2025) $15 per hour. …
Congressional Budget Office’s, (CBO’s) description of low wage rates bracket’s (top) 2025 is based upon the federal minimum wage rate remaining at its present $7.25 per hour in 2025. Of course the top rate of the low-wage rate bracket would be substantially greater than $19 per hour if the 2025 minimum rate were increased to $15 per hour.
Refer to page 10 of https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf , “…. Low-wage workers are people who are projected, under current law, to be paid less than $19 per hour in 2025. “
Respectfully, Supposn
ToddsterPatriot, what tautology? Supposn's earlier post was : "ToddsterPatriot, the Congressional Budget office, (CBO) projects $19 of 2018 purchasing power valued dollars as being the top of the low-rate wage bracket in 2025, if the federal minimum wage rate, (FMWR) is then (in 2025) $15 per hour.
In my opinion the CBO projection of $19 describes a too narrow a bracket of wage rates. (i.e. $19 under-states the top of that that LOWEST-RATE bracket of wage rates).
If and when a FMWR of $15 per hour is ever achieved, $19 should not be described as the top of the LOW, but rather the top of the LOWEST bracket of rates that are most critically affected by the FMWR.
The LOW-rate bracket should be those wage rates affected by the FMWR to the extents ranging from critical to substantial portions of jobs’ rates. The top of that LOW-rate bracket of wage rates is higher than $19 expressed in dollars’ of 2018 valued purchasing power regardless of whatever is the then current FMWR. Respectfully, Supposn" .
ToddsterPatriot's responded with : Where is the definition of "low-rate wage bracket?"
Supposn referred back to the CBO’s reports and 2 hours after his earlier post additionally posted a correction to his erroneous misquotation of the CBO’s words.
Supposn posted: "ToddsterPatriot, ... You correctly pointed out my error and the consequential purpose of my prior post addressed to you.
Congressional Budget Office’s, (CBO’s) description of low wage rates bracket’s (top) 2025 is based upon the federal minimum wage rate remaining at its present $7.25 per hour in 2025. Of course, the top rate of the low-wage rate bracket would be substantially greater than $19 per hour if the 2025 minimum rate were increased to $15 per hour.
Refer to page 10 of https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf , “…. Low-wage workers are people who are projected, under current law, to be paid less than $19 per hour in 2025”. Respectfully, Supposn".
lol. Maybe, when right wingers stop complaining about taxes for the cost of social services.Someone else? Are you referring to the U.S. Congress that passed the federal minimum wage rate, or the U.S. President that signed the rate increase act so it could be enacted?
Respectfully, Supposn
I'm referring to anyone other than the employer and the employee. The compensation they both agree to is no one else's business.
ToddsterPatriot, it matters because the CBO’s reports are based upon studies and projections reflecting minimum wage rate affects rates within the bracket of low wage rates, that range from critical to substantial portions of those rates, and 32% of all USA’s employee’s rates are within that low wage rate bracket. Respectfully, SupposnSo they made up a definition.....good for them.
Why does their definition matter?