Minimum wage rate and labors’ market prices.

[Supposn]

When the purchasing power of USA’s minimum wage rates are permitted to be reduced, the purchasing power of USA’s low-wage rate employees, (32% of our entire work forces’) wage rates are particularly less than otherwise. ...

Despite the 32% arbitrary claim by the CBO, the minimum wage only effects a tiny number of employees, as shown by the fact that so few earn that wage.

ToddsterPatriot. Low wage rate employees, (e.g. busboys or single parent cleaning ladies, or paid summertime interns employed by law firms), may all be low-wage rate employees, and yet may be members of families with vastly different annual incomes. CBO estimates that 32% of USA employees in 2025 will be such low-wage rate employees. Since the top rate of the low-wage rate bracket of rates varies due to the variable value of the dollar in differing years, the top rate of $19 per hour in 2018 will not be the same numbers of dollars in 2025, (even if the federal minimum wage rate is not increased).

I doubt if the percentage of USA’s employees that CBO considers to be low-wage rate employees, has varied very much over the years. If USA’s minimum wage laws are eliminated with no provisions to replace them, it would consequentially be of critical to substantial detriment to no less than 32% of USA’s employees.

You don’t believe that 32% of USA employees earned no more than $19 per hour in 2018? Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When the purchasing power of USA’s minimum wage rates are permitted to be reduced, the purchasing power of USA’s low-wage rate employees, (32% of our entire work forces’) wage rates are particularly less than otherwise. ...

Despite the 32% arbitrary claim by the CBO, the minimum wage only effects a tiny number of employees, as shown by the fact that so few earn that wage.

ToddsterPatriot. Low wage rate employees, (e.g. busboys or single parent cleaning ladies, or paid summertime interns employed by law firms), may all be low-wage rate employees, and yet may be members of families with vastly different annual incomes. CBO estimates that 32% of USA employees in 2025 will be such low-wage rate employees. Since the top rate of the low-wage rate bracket of rates varies due to the variable value of the dollar in differing years, the top rate of $19 per hour in 2018 will not be the same numbers of dollars in 2025, (even if the federal minimum wage rate is not increased).

I doubt if the percentage of USA’s employees that CBO considers to be low-wage rate employees, has varied very much over the years. If USA’s minimum wage laws are eliminated with no provisions to replace them, it would consequentially be of critical to substantial detriment to no less than 32% of USA’s employees.

You don’t believe that 32% of USA employees earned no more than $19 per hour in 2018? Respectfully, Supposn

Low wage rate employees, (e.g. busboys or single parent cleaning ladies, or paid summertime interns employed by law firms), may all be low-wage rate employees, and yet may be members of families with vastly different annual incomes.

Teenagers working for minimum wage could be a part of a high-wage family?
The effect on them of the minimum wage might not range from critical to substantial?

You don’t believe that 32% of USA employees earned no more than $19 per hour in 2018?

I don't believe that employees earning $19 per hour would be effected if the minimum wage were repealed. Do you? If so, how?

 

[Supposn]

ToddsterPatriot. Low wage rate employees, (e.g. busboys or single parent cleaning ladies, or paid summertime interns employed by law firms), may all be low-wage rate employees, and yet may be members of families with vastly different annual incomes. CBO estimates that 32% of USA employees in 2025 will be such low-wage rate employees. Since the top rate of the low-wage rate bracket of rates varies due to the variable value of the dollar in differing years, the top rate of $19 per hour in 2018 will not be the same numbers of dollars in 2025, (even if the federal minimum wage rate is not increased).

I doubt if the percentage of USA’s employees that CBO considers to be low-wage rate employees, has varied very much over the years. If USA’s minimum wage laws are eliminated with no provisions to replace them, it would consequentially be of critical to substantial detriment to no less than 32% of USA’s employees. ...

... Teenagers working for minimum wage could be a part of a high-wage family?
The effect on them of the minimum wage might not range from critical to substantial? ... I don't believe that employees earning $19 per hour would be effected if the minimum wage were repealed. Do you? If so, how?

ToddsterPatriot, didn’t I state the minimum wage rate particularly affects EMPLOYEES earning low wage rates? Although employed members of low-income families are effectively all low-wage rate earners and are substantially more than a fifth of all USA employees, and the CBO contends low-wage rate employees are 32% of our nation’s work forces.

The extents of minimum wage rates effects upon employee wage rates’ purchasing powers due to government rate increases or the U.S. dollar’s losses of purchasing power, are not as radical as would be the effects due to elimination of minimum wage rate laws. The legally applicable definite minimum rate is the market rate in every USA market. If there’s no legally enforced definite rate, the USA’s markets’ minimum rates are un-defined with no legally defined and enforced “bottoms”.

Eliminating minimum wage rate laws would detrimentally affect low-wage rate bracket’s rates to proportional extents ranging from critical to substantial.

During economic depressions, such undefined market minimum rates are likely to some-times spiral down to the most drastically poor depths. In such times, other than only the low wage rate bracket of wage rates may also be dragged along.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ToddsterPatriot. Low wage rate employees, (e.g. busboys or single parent cleaning ladies, or paid summertime interns employed by law firms), may all be low-wage rate employees, and yet may be members of families with vastly different annual incomes. CBO estimates that 32% of USA employees in 2025 will be such low-wage rate employees. Since the top rate of the low-wage rate bracket of rates varies due to the variable value of the dollar in differing years, the top rate of $19 per hour in 2018 will not be the same numbers of dollars in 2025, (even if the federal minimum wage rate is not increased).

I doubt if the percentage of USA’s employees that CBO considers to be low-wage rate employees, has varied very much over the years. If USA’s minimum wage laws are eliminated with no provisions to replace them, it would consequentially be of critical to substantial detriment to no less than 32% of USA’s employees. ...

... Teenagers working for minimum wage could be a part of a high-wage family?
The effect on them of the minimum wage might not range from critical to substantial? ... I don't believe that employees earning $19 per hour would be effected if the minimum wage were repealed. Do you? If so, how?

ToddsterPatriot, didn’t I state the minimum wage rate particularly affects EMPLOYEES earning low wage rates? Although employed members of low-income families are effectively all low-wage rate earners and are substantially more than a fifth of all USA employees, and the CBO contends low-wage rate employees are 32% of our nation’s work forces.

The extents of minimum wage rates effects upon employee wage rates’ purchasing powers due to government rate increases or the U.S. dollar’s losses of purchasing power, are not as radical as would be the effects due to elimination of minimum wage rate laws. The legally applicable definite minimum rate is the market rate in every USA market. If there’s no legally enforced definite rate, the USA’s markets’ minimum rates are un-defined with no legally defined and enforced “bottoms”.

Eliminating minimum wage rate laws would detrimentally affect low-wage rate bracket’s rates to proportional extents ranging from critical to substantial.

During economic depressions, such undefined market minimum rates are likely to some-times spiral down to the most drastically poor depths. In such times, other than only the low wage rate bracket of wage rates may also be dragged along.
Respectfully, Supposn

didn’t I state the minimum wage rate particularly affects EMPLOYEES earning low wage rates?

Yes. And then you pretend that means the bottom 32% of workers are affected.

If there’s no legally enforced definite rate, the USA’s markets’ minimum rates are un-defined with no legally defined and enforced “bottoms”.

Yes. You say that like it's a bad thing.

Eliminating minimum wage rate laws would detrimentally affect low-wage rate bracket’s rates to proportional extents ranging from critical to substantial.

You can't prove that. As you're already admitted.

During economic depressions, such undefined market minimum rates are likely to some-times spiral down to the most drastically poor depths.

Depressions are the worst time to have a minimum wage.

 

[danielpalos]

The bottom line is wages need to outpace inflation on an Institutional basis. What is your market friendly plan, right wingers?

The left is for solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner that also bears true witness to our welfare clause General, and our Commerce Clause in particular.

 

[dblack]

The bottom line is wages need to outpace inflation on an Institutional basis. What is your market friendly plan, right wingers?

The left is for solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner that also bears true witness to our welfare clause General, and our Commerce Clause in particular.

*sigh* - stoner trolling. On an institutional basis. Welfare friendly keyboard vomit.

 

[danielpalos]

The bottom line is wages need to outpace inflation on an Institutional basis. What is your market friendly plan, right wingers?

The left is for solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner that also bears true witness to our welfare clause General, and our Commerce Clause in particular.

*sigh* - stoner trolling. On an institutional basis. Welfare friendly keyboard vomit.

thanks for ceding the point and the argument by resorting to the most fallacies first. congratulations.

 

[Supposn]

ToddsterPatriot. I suppose incomes derived from public assistance, unemployment insurance, disability, and pension benefits, are not excluded from U.S. Census Bureau’s published ratios of family incomes to poverty thresholds. The Congressional Budget Office’s, (CBO’s) 2025 projections are based upon those Census Bureau’s statistics.

The inclusion of these non-wage incomes within families’ total incomes would fully explain CBO’s 2025 projections of family incomes’ dismally poor increases due to the increases of the minimum rate. Those projections of poor increases were supportive of yours and undermining of my contentions regarding the minimum wage rate’s contributions the incomes of low-wage rate employees.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ToddsterPatriot. I suppose incomes derived from public assistance, unemployment insurance, disability, and pension benefits, are not excluded from U.S. Census Bureau’s published ratios of family incomes to poverty thresholds. The Congressional Budget Office’s, (CBO’s) 2025 projections are based upon those Census Bureau’s statistics.

The inclusion of these non-wage incomes within families’ total incomes would fully explain CBO’s 2025 projections of family incomes’ dismally poor increases due to the increases of the minimum rate. Those projections of poor increases were supportive of yours and undermining of my contentions regarding the minimum wage rate’s contributions the incomes of low-wage rate employees.
Respectfully, Supposn

I suppose incomes derived from public assistance, unemployment insurance, disability, and pension benefits, are not excluded from U.S. Census Bureau’s published ratios of family incomes to poverty thresholds.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2013/201351/201351pap.pdf

The inclusion of these non-wage incomes within families’ total incomes would fully explain CBO’s 2025 projections of family incomes’ dismally poor increases due to the increases of the minimum rate.

So a $15 minimum wage only helps actual workers a little bit?

 

[Supposn]

... View attachment 404753

https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2013/201351/201351pap.pdf

...
… So a $15 minimum wage only helps actual workers a little bit?

ToddsterPatriot, to the extent of its purchasing power, it reduces the number and incidences of poverty in the USA. That’s its primary purpose. But while performing that purpose, (due to employers’ wage differential practices), the minimum rate affects all low-wage rates. Affecting wage rates consequentially affects total wages, but it does not primarily effect other than wage incomes.

It’s of great help to all employees earning rates within the low-wage bracket of wage rates.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It’s of great help to all employees earning rates within the low-wage bracket of wage rates.

I disagree. If you ever find any proof, please post it.

 

[Supposn]

It’s of great help to all employees earning rates within the low-wage bracket of wage rates.

I disagree. If you ever find any proof, please post it.

ToddsterPatriot, my logical explanation does noot apparently impress you. If you ever find proof of minimum wage rate not to the extent of its purchasing power, reducing the incidences and/or extents of poverty among USA's working poor, or of being net detrimental to USA's economy and social wellbeing, please post me. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It’s of great help to all employees earning rates within the low-wage bracket of wage rates.

I disagree. If you ever find any proof, please post it.

ToddsterPatriot, my logical explanation does noot apparently impress you. If you ever find proof of minimum wage rate not to the extent of its purchasing power, reducing the incidences and/or extents of poverty among USA's working poor, or of being net detrimental to USA's economy and social wellbeing, please post me. Respectfully, Supposn

I disagree with your logic.

If the market forces an employer to pay $10/hr in a $7.25/hr minimum environment, how would
eliminating the minimum reduce the income of the $10/hr worker?

With no minimum wage law, you can advertise all the $1/hr jobs you like, you'll never fill them.

 

[Supposn]

I disagree with your logic.
If the market forces an employer to pay $10/hr in a $7.25/hr minimum environment, how would
eliminating the minimum reduce the income of the $10/hr worker?

With no minimum wage law, you can advertise all the $1/hr jobs you like, you'll never fill them.

ToddsterPatriot, without legally enforced minimum wage rates, it’s certain that jobs of less than $7.25 per hour will be advertised in the USA.

I’m confident that because so many of those jobs will be filled, it will evoke jobs of increasingly less than 2020’s $7.25 purchasing power to be advertised, and many of those jobs will be filled.

I’m confident that after many lesser than $725 jobs are filled, there will inevitably be lesser than $4 per hour jobs advertised, and many of those will be filled. There’s no absolute limit to how much lesser than $7.25 purchasing power jobs will be advertised. I’m confident that when jobs of lesser than $7.25 can legally be generally offered, jobs of lesser than $4 purchasing power will be offered, and many of those jobs will be filled.
There’s no “bottom to how much lesser than $$4 purchasing power would be offered, and no more than 100% of those jobs could be filled.

I have no doubt that the elimination of USA’s minimum wage rate laws, with no provision for replacing them, would be net detrimental to our economic and social wellbeing.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I disagree with your logic.
If the market forces an employer to pay $10/hr in a $7.25/hr minimum environment, how would
eliminating the minimum reduce the income of the $10/hr worker?

With no minimum wage law, you can advertise all the $1/hr jobs you like, you'll never fill them.

ToddsterPatriot, without legally enforced minimum wage rates, it’s certain that jobs of less than $7.25 per hour will be advertised in the USA.

I’m confident that because so many of those jobs will be filled, it will evoke jobs of increasingly less than 2020’s $7.25 purchasing power to be advertised, and many of those jobs will be filled.

I’m confident that after many lesser than $725 jobs are filled, there will inevitably be lesser than $4 per hour jobs advertised, and many of those will be filled. There’s no absolute limit to how much lesser than $7.25 purchasing power jobs will be advertised. I’m confident that when jobs of lesser than $7.25 can legally be generally offered, jobs of lesser than $4 purchasing power will be offered, and many of those jobs will be filled.
There’s no “bottom to how much lesser than $$4 purchasing power would be offered, and no more than 100% of those jobs could be filled.

I have no doubt that the elimination of USA’s minimum wage rate laws, with no provision for replacing them, would be net detrimental to our economic and social wellbeing.
Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, without legally enforced minimum wage rates, it’s certain that jobs of less than $7.25 per hour will be advertised in the USA.

Abso-fucking-lutely!!!

I’m confident that after many lesser than $725 jobs are filled, there will inevitably be lesser than $4 per hour jobs advertised,

Yes, you've made clear your confusion about economics.

I have no doubt that the elimination of USA’s minimum wage rate laws, with no provision for replacing them, would be net detrimental to our economic and social wellbeing.

Well, golly, when you can answer my question, I'll no doubt be convinced of your correctness.

Just to refresh your memory........

If the market forces an employer to pay $10/hr in a $7.25/hr minimum environment, how would
eliminating the minimum reduce the income of the $10/hr worker?

 

[Supposn]

... Well, golly, when you can answer my question, I'll no doubt be convinced of your correctness.
Just to refresh your memory........
If the market forces an employer to pay $10/hr in a $7.25/hr minimum environment, how would eliminating the minimum reduce the income of the $10/hr worker?

Toddsterpatriot, due to employers' common wage differential practices, the minimum wage rate significantly affects all rates within the low-wage rate bracket of wages, and if the minimum rate's only $7,25 per hour,$10 per hour is certainly a low-wage rate.

Eliminating the the definite legally enforced minimum wage leaves only an indefinite unenforceable minimum rate that has no definite bottom. The purchasing power of low-wage rate workers will certainly be decreased.

If there's no definite minimum, and no scarcity of potential employees, the pool of workers willing to accept lesser rates will always increase at a faster rate than the lesser rate jobs created to employ them. Unemployment rates of unskilled and lowest skilled workers will not decrease, but they are much more likely to increase. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[danielpalos]

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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... Well, golly, when you can answer my question, I'll no doubt be convinced of your correctness.
Just to refresh your memory........
If the market forces an employer to pay $10/hr in a $7.25/hr minimum environment, how would eliminating the minimum reduce the income of the $10/hr worker?

Toddsterpatriot, due to employers' common wage differential practices, the minimum wage rate significantly affects all rates within the low-wage rate bracket of wages, and if the minimum rate's only $7,25 per hour,$10 per hour is certainly a low-wage rate.

Eliminating the the definite legally enforced minimum wage leaves only an indefinite unenforceable minimum rate that has no definite bottom. The purchasing power of low-wage rate workers will certainly be decreased.

If there's no definite minimum, and no scarcity of potential employees, the pool of workers willing to accept lesser rates will always increase at a faster rate than the lesser rate jobs created to employ them. Unemployment rates of unskilled and lowest skilled workers will not decrease, but they are much more likely to increase. Respectfully, Supposn

the minimum wage rate significantly affects all rates within the low-wage rate bracket of wages,

Prove it.

Eliminating the the definite legally enforced minimum wage leaves only an indefinite unenforceable minimum rate that has no definite bottom.

The bottom is what people will work for, not $1/hr or less.
Prove that eliminating the $7.25 minimum would harm those making $10.

Unemployment rates of unskilled and lowest skilled workers will not decrease,

Unskilled workers who aren't currently hired at $7.25, because they're not adding that much value, won't get hired for less? Why not?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The purchasing power of low-wage rate workers will certainly be decreased.

Minimum wage renders those not worth the minimum wage unemployable. Thus, the purchasing power of the poor decreases thanks to the minimum wage.

Libsocialist policies amount to a war on the poor.

 

[Supposn]

the minimum wage rate significantly affects all rates within the low-wage rate bracket of wages.

Prove it. ...

ToddsterPatriot, District Attorneys, (i.e. DAs) attempt to “plead-down” cases if they doubt that reasonable people would not consider the defendants’ as being proven “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”
When what DAs’ expectations are not met, (i.e. when there’s a hung jury”), DAs may, and sometimes do seek a retrial of the case. Those DA’s have decided that they did not have an 11-person jury of persons with reasonably good judgement.

What’s proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and who are people of reasonably good judgement are to some extents, subjective questions.

I believe the my arguments and evidence I posted in this thread certainly satisfy civil courts’ standard of a “preponderance of truth”, if not beyond a reasonable doubt There little within discussions of economic and political matters that are ever proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

It’s my opinion that I have, and it’s your opinion that I have not “made my case”. Respectfully Supposn