New Research: Greatest Low-Wage Earnings Gains Came In States That Raised The Minimum Wage

[martybegan]

And what happened to their buying power?

If your wage goes up 2.5% and inflation is at 2.5% because of the wage increase, there is no net benefit.

Conservative economic ignorance at it's finest.

Explain how can 2.5% increased mw wages, which comprise a small fraction of business expenses can POSSIBLY cause 2.5% inflation. And further explain why the fuck you would expect inflation to be 0% absent mw increase.

The stuff that gets passed around as sane economic commentary on the right is mind-boggling.

I simplified it so progressive twatwaddles such as yourself can understand it. But the crux of the situation is that economics cannot handle someone being paid $15 an hour to add $5-$10 worth of value to a product or a service. In that situation, costs have to go up.

The original GOP argument against minimum wage was all the jobs would disappear, lowering the average earnings (not wage).

No one ever said that. Why do liberals need to lie so often? The study does no good without know the full economic impact. How many lost jobs or got moved to part time? That sort of stuff.

And what happened to their buying power?

If your wage goes up 2.5% and inflation is at 2.5% because of the wage increase, there is no net benefit.

Wage growth equal to inflation is progress.
Losing 2.5% of buying power every year is horrible. This is exactly the reason MW should be indexed to inflation.

it still doesn't change the fact that paying people $15 for $10 worth of work is not economically viable.

Who says it's $10 worth of work?
Is $15/hr in today's dollar a better,same or worse value for the earner as compared to MW of the past? What is the standard? If you were to put past MW rates into 2016 real dollars, the MW would be $20+ to match buying power.

Economics say how much value a given task adds to a service or product. MW's in general fix part of the equation that determines the value of a service or product, without raising the end result of the equation, namely what a consumer is willing to pay for something. So if that remains fixed, other parts of the equation have to compensate.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

And what happened to their buying power?

If your wage goes up 2.5% and inflation is at 2.5% because of the wage increase, there is no net benefit.

Conservative economic ignorance at it's finest.

Explain how can 2.5% increased mw wages, which comprise a small fraction of business expenses can POSSIBLY cause 2.5% inflation. And further explain why the fuck you would expect inflation to be 0% absent mw increase.

The stuff that gets passed around as sane economic commentary on the right is mind-boggling.

I simplified it so progressive twatwaddles such as yourself can understand it. But the crux of the situation is that economics cannot handle someone being paid $15 an hour to add $5-$10 worth of value to a product or a service. In that situation, costs have to go up.

No one ever said that. Why do liberals need to lie so often? The study does no good without know the full economic impact. How many lost jobs or got moved to part time? That sort of stuff.

And what happened to their buying power?

If your wage goes up 2.5% and inflation is at 2.5% because of the wage increase, there is no net benefit.

Wage growth equal to inflation is progress.
Losing 2.5% of buying power every year is horrible. This is exactly the reason MW should be indexed to inflation.

it still doesn't change the fact that paying people $15 for $10 worth of work is not economically viable.

Who says it's $10 worth of work?
Is $15/hr in today's dollar a better,same or worse value for the earner as compared to MW of the past? What is the standard? If you were to put past MW rates into 2016 real dollars, the MW would be $20+ to match buying power.

Economics say how much value a given task adds to a service or product. MW's in general fix part of the equation that determines the value of a service or product, without raising the end result of the equation, namely what a consumer is willing to pay for something. So if that remains fixed, other parts of the equation have to compensate.

Economics decide?
Nice, safe ambiguous answer.

Simple question. Should wages decrease over time or increase?
When talking about MW, shouldn't the standard be that it buy at least as much as it has in the past?

 

[AntonToo]

it still doesn't change the fact that paying people $15 for $10 worth of work is not economically viable.

Well the current federal minimum wage is $7.25, so since you say that work is worth $10, do you support Federal MW increase?

SOME work is worth $10 an hour, some is worth $5 an hour. while paying $7.25 for work worth $5 an hour is an issue, a bigger issue is paying someone $15 an hour for it.

Right, so your number is completely arbitrary and actually means nothing.

Strictly market setting the cost of labor is non starter, we've had minimum wage laws for a long time, they work and this is a moot conversation.

The MW has never been so high as to eclipse the added value of the labor in some cases, which can result in more impacts then "poor people get more money".

If you don't have the cognitive ability to understand the concepts I am trying to explain, may I suggest the Hello Kitty Message Board as something more your speed.

That's not how any of that works. Like most conservatives you have a fantasy in your head about how economy works that just isn't so.

Federal minimum wage was $10 in real terms in the 60s, so tell me again why setting it to $10 today is "never been"

 

[martybegan]

And what happened to their buying power?

If your wage goes up 2.5% and inflation is at 2.5% because of the wage increase, there is no net benefit.

Conservative economic ignorance at it's finest.

Explain how can 2.5% increased mw wages, which comprise a small fraction of business expenses can POSSIBLY cause 2.5% inflation. And further explain why the fuck you would expect inflation to be 0% absent mw increase.

The stuff that gets passed around as sane economic commentary on the right is mind-boggling.

I simplified it so progressive twatwaddles such as yourself can understand it. But the crux of the situation is that economics cannot handle someone being paid $15 an hour to add $5-$10 worth of value to a product or a service. In that situation, costs have to go up.

And what happened to their buying power?

If your wage goes up 2.5% and inflation is at 2.5% because of the wage increase, there is no net benefit.

Wage growth equal to inflation is progress.
Losing 2.5% of buying power every year is horrible. This is exactly the reason MW should be indexed to inflation.

it still doesn't change the fact that paying people $15 for $10 worth of work is not economically viable.

Who says it's $10 worth of work?
Is $15/hr in today's dollar a better,same or worse value for the earner as compared to MW of the past? What is the standard? If you were to put past MW rates into 2016 real dollars, the MW would be $20+ to match buying power.

Economics say how much value a given task adds to a service or product. MW's in general fix part of the equation that determines the value of a service or product, without raising the end result of the equation, namely what a consumer is willing to pay for something. So if that remains fixed, other parts of the equation have to compensate.

Economics decide?
Nice, safe ambiguous answer.

Simple question. Should wages decrease over time or increase?
When talking about MW, shouldn't the standard be that it buy at least as much as it has in the past?

No, its the real answer, and it is what determines if paying someone $15 for a given job is economically viable or not.

A PERSON's wages should increase over time, as they gain experience and move on to more difficult and valuable labor. Overall wage's increase or decrease is decided by macro-economic factors, and will be further impacted by automation, which will only be increased if we keep thinking we can pay people more than they put back into the system.

And a person's buying power now vs. then is a pretty crappy comparison, considering the changes in technology and availability of services that were not around in the past at costs normal people could afford.

 

[Wyatt earp]

My argument is that prices will increase

Yeah, that Big Mac might cost you an extra quarter.

Bread an extra quarter

Coke an extra quarter

Diapers an extra quarter

Socks an extra quarter

Shampoo an extra quarter

Chrerios an extra quarter

........


Wow those extra quarters add up to real dollars..


Liberal logic economics is mind blowing on how they can't do math..


.

 

[martybegan]

it still doesn't change the fact that paying people $15 for $10 worth of work is not economically viable.

Well the current federal minimum wage is $7.25, so since you say that work is worth $10, do you support Federal MW increase?

SOME work is worth $10 an hour, some is worth $5 an hour. while paying $7.25 for work worth $5 an hour is an issue, a bigger issue is paying someone $15 an hour for it.

Right, so your number is completely arbitrary and actually means nothing.

Strictly market setting the cost of labor is non starter, we've had minimum wage laws for a long time, they work and this is a moot conversation.

The MW has never been so high as to eclipse the added value of the labor in some cases, which can result in more impacts then "poor people get more money".

If you don't have the cognitive ability to understand the concepts I am trying to explain, may I suggest the Hello Kitty Message Board as something more your speed.

That's not how any of that works. Like most conservatives you have a fantasy in your head about how economy works that just isn't so.

Federal minimum wage was $10 in real terms in the 60s, so tell me again why setting it to $10 today is "never been"

Because those real terms from the 60's do not match today's economy, due to changes in automation and availability of cheaper services and goods compared to back then. You pick one metric, low end wages, and ignore the decrease in costs of "luxury" items back then that are commonplace and affordable to almost everyone today.

 

[Wyatt earp]

it still doesn't change the fact that paying people $15 for $10 worth of work is not economically viable.

Well the current federal minimum wage is $7.25, so since you say that work is worth $10, do you support Federal MW increase?

SOME work is worth $10 an hour, some is worth $5 an hour. while paying $7.25 for work worth $5 an hour is an issue, a bigger issue is paying someone $15 an hour for it.

Right, so your number is completely arbitrary and actually means nothing.

Strictly market setting the cost of labor is non starter, we've had minimum wage laws for a long time, they work and this is a moot conversation.

The MW has never been so high as to eclipse the added value of the labor in some cases, which can result in more impacts then "poor people get more money".

If you don't have the cognitive ability to understand the concepts I am trying to explain, may I suggest the Hello Kitty Message Board as something more your speed.

That's not how any of that works. Like most conservatives you have a fantasy in your head about how economy works that just isn't so.

Federal minimum wage was $10 in real terms in the 60s, so tell me again why setting it to $10 today is "never been"

The 60s we were not competing with the japensee, Chinese....

.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

it still doesn't change the fact that paying people $15 for $10 worth of work is not economically viable.

Well the current federal minimum wage is $7.25, so since you say that work is worth $10, do you support Federal MW increase?

SOME work is worth $10 an hour, some is worth $5 an hour. while paying $7.25 for work worth $5 an hour is an issue, a bigger issue is paying someone $15 an hour for it.

Right, so your number is completely arbitrary and actually means nothing.

Strictly market setting the cost of labor is non starter, we've had minimum wage laws for a long time, they work and this is a moot conversation.

The MW has never been so high as to eclipse the added value of the labor in some cases, which can result in more impacts then "poor people get more money".

If you don't have the cognitive ability to understand the concepts I am trying to explain, may I suggest the Hello Kitty Message Board as something more your speed.

That's not how any of that works. Like most conservatives you have a fantasy on your head about how economy works that just isn't so.

Federal minimum wage was $10 in real terms in the 60s, so tell me again why setting it to $10 today is "never been"

IKR?

That's what I've been saying. It's lower now then when I made $3.35 in the early 80s.

 

[AntonToo]

The 60s we were not competing with the japensee, Chinese....
.

Yea, the Chinese and Japanese are threatening to take over McDonalds jobs across America.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Well the current federal minimum wage is $7.25, so since you say that work is worth $10, do you support Federal MW increase?

SOME work is worth $10 an hour, some is worth $5 an hour. while paying $7.25 for work worth $5 an hour is an issue, a bigger issue is paying someone $15 an hour for it.

Right, so your number is completely arbitrary and actually means nothing.

Strictly market setting the cost of labor is non starter, we've had minimum wage laws for a long time, they work and this is a moot conversation.

The MW has never been so high as to eclipse the added value of the labor in some cases, which can result in more impacts then "poor people get more money".

If you don't have the cognitive ability to understand the concepts I am trying to explain, may I suggest the Hello Kitty Message Board as something more your speed.

That's not how any of that works. Like most conservatives you have a fantasy in your head about how economy works that just isn't so.

Federal minimum wage was $10 in real terms in the 60s, so tell me again why setting it to $10 today is "never been"

Because those real terms from the 60's do not match today's economy, due to changes in automation and availability of cheaper services and goods compared to back then. You pick one metric, low end wages, and ignore the decrease in costs of "luxury" items back then that are commonplace and affordable to almost everyone today.

Yes, while you ignore the cost increases in food, housing, clothing, transportation and education.

 

[martybegan]

My argument is that prices will increase

Yeah, that Big Mac might cost you an extra quarter.

Bread an extra quarter

Coke an extra quarter

Diapers an extra quarter

Socks an extra quarter

Shampoo an extra quarter

Chrerios an extra quarter

........


Wow those extra quarters add up to real dollars..


Liberal logic economics is mind blowing on how they can't do math..


.

I had a real world example of this at work. We were supposed to be feeding 5.5 GPM of a chemical through multiple valves to wastewater tanks. When we did the math on the storage tank drawdown, it was closer to 11 GPM. We ruled out a leak, and it turns out 2.3 GPM of that was due to a bad valve sending 2.3 GPM instead of 0.1 GPM of the chemical to one of the tanks. The other 3-4 GPM was due to bad tuning of the control valves, where instead of 0.1 GPM and 0.3 GPM of flow, it was adding 0.11-0.14 and 0.31-0.34 GPM through each valve.

Small at each valve, but if you are operating 30 or so valves, that gives you your overdose.

Just like price increases when you muck around with a economic system you don't fully understand.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I simplified it so progressive twatwaddles such as yourself can understand it. But the crux of the situation is that economics cannot handle someone being paid $15 an hour to add $5-$10 worth of value to a product or a service. In that situation, costs have to go up.

Yea ok

Only one small problem: That which is false should not be understood as true.

Liberals do not argue that costs will not go up, they argue that poor people will be better off. Facts back that up and contradict conservative bullshit about how poor are not actually better off because mw causes so much inflation that it doesn't help low income earners.

When you done playing in the sandbox you may want to read up what serious economic estimates say about this matter:

The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income

Raising the minimum wage across the board will never increase wealth ..

 

[Flash]

I am always amazed at the stupidity of Moon Bats.

Of course if the fucking oppressive government institutes mandatory wages then the wages will go up.

However, Government price controls of goods and services and labor rates will all eventually end in disaster.

The free market of labor is the only efficient way to establish wages. Government interference introduces non economic distortions and higher cost that will eventually cause problems.

It would really be nice if these idiotic Moon Bats would take a course in basic economics every once in awhile. Then they wouldn't post idiotic things on an internet discussion board.

 

[martybegan]

SOME work is worth $10 an hour, some is worth $5 an hour. while paying $7.25 for work worth $5 an hour is an issue, a bigger issue is paying someone $15 an hour for it.

Right, so your number is completely arbitrary and actually means nothing.

Strictly market setting the cost of labor is non starter, we've had minimum wage laws for a long time, they work and this is a moot conversation.

The MW has never been so high as to eclipse the added value of the labor in some cases, which can result in more impacts then "poor people get more money".

If you don't have the cognitive ability to understand the concepts I am trying to explain, may I suggest the Hello Kitty Message Board as something more your speed.

That's not how any of that works. Like most conservatives you have a fantasy in your head about how economy works that just isn't so.

Federal minimum wage was $10 in real terms in the 60s, so tell me again why setting it to $10 today is "never been"

Because those real terms from the 60's do not match today's economy, due to changes in automation and availability of cheaper services and goods compared to back then. You pick one metric, low end wages, and ignore the decrease in costs of "luxury" items back then that are commonplace and affordable to almost everyone today.

Yes, while you ignore the cost increases in food, housing, clothing, transportation and education.

Food and clothing costs have increased?

Housing has only really increased in large markets, and that is due to rent controls, and bad zoning laws.
Transportation has increased mostly in public transport, and that is due to government, not the market
and education costs have increased also due to government meddling.

So your point?

 

[Wyatt earp]

The 60s we were not competing with the japensee, Chinese....
.

Yea, the Chinese and Japanese are threatening to take over McDonalds jobs across America.

Damn your knowledge of import/exports is ridiculous ignorant.

 

[Darkwind]

New Research: Greatest Low-Wage Earnings Gains Came In States That Raised The Minimum Wage

MassBudget published its findings on how the minimum wage affects earnings in its 2016 State of Working Massachusetts report, published September 5. The study largely focused on a 7 percent increase in wage growth that low-wage Massachusetts workers experienced from 2014 to 2015 after the state enacted a minimum wage increase. The report also found that low-wage earnings growth was strongest nationwide in states that raised their minimum wages. According to the MassBudget report, women saw relatively greater income gains at the state level than men over the past year, and that may be related to the fact that women make up nearly two-thirds of all minimum wage workers and are disproportionately affected by wage increases. From the 2016 State of Working Massachusetts:


Wow, and not company went out of business. Mr. Papa Johns still has his castle.

I was looking at your chart and discovered something interesting. It is cherry picked data.

Increase someones wage and they show a gain in wages. Outstanding.

I wish them luck.

Now, where is the chart that shows the number of jobs that were reduced to part time? Show Me the chart that details for every job wage increased, the number of jobs cut. Finally, show Me the data used so that I can assure Myself that the increase in wages as detailed in this chart are not newly hired people and that those who were making more than the minimum wage were not let go in favor of a group of people who benefited from a wage increase by being hired.

 

[Mr Natural]

Bread an extra quarter

Coke an extra quarter

Diapers an extra quarter

Socks an extra quarter

Shampoo an extra quarter

Chrerios an extra quarter

........


Wow those extra quarters add up to real dollars..


Liberal logic economics is mind blowing on how they can't do math..

A buck-and-half!

Holy shit, we're all going to go broke!

 

[AntonToo]

I had a real world example of this at work. We were supposed to be feeding 5.5 GPM of a chemical through multiple valves to wastewater tanks. When we did the math on the storage tank drawdown, it was closer to 11 GPM. We ruled out a leak, and it turns out 2.3 GPM of that was due to a bad valve sending 2.3 GPM instead of 0.1 GPM of the chemical to one of the tanks. The other 3-4 GPM was due to bad tuning of the control valves, where instead of 0.1 GPM and 0.3 GPM of flow, it was adding 0.11-0.14 and 0.31-0.34 GPM through each valve.

Small at each valve, but if you are operating 30 or so valves, that gives you your overdose.

Just like price increases when you muck around with a economic system you don't fully understand.

How enlightening


Bottom line, Americans generally can pay a little more to help the poor get minimally compensated for labor. It is fair and the right thing to do.

Conservatives keep talking about the dignity of labor, but when it comes to dignified compensation they bail out, just like they keep talking about outlawing abortions but then bail on helping the kids born into poverty.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I simplified it so progressive twatwaddles such as yourself can understand it. But the crux of the situation is that economics cannot handle someone being paid $15 an hour to add $5-$10 worth of value to a product or a service. In that situation, costs have to go up.

Yea ok

Only one small problem: That which is false should not be understood as true.

Liberals do not argue that costs will not go up, they argue that poor people will be better off. Facts back that up and contradict conservative bullshit about how poor are not actually better off because mw causes so much inflation that it doesn't help low income earners.

When you done playing in the sandbox you may want to read up what serious economic estimates say about this matter:

The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income

Raising the minimum wage across the board will never increase wealth ..

Just look at Australia's and New Zealand's high minimum wage, working poor is still a huge problem and raising the minimum wage never helps.


Meet The Working Poor: One Million Australians Are Living In Severe Poverty

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Conservative economic ignorance at it's finest.

Explain how can 2.5% increased mw wages, which comprise a small fraction of business expenses can POSSIBLY cause 2.5% inflation. And further explain why the fuck you would expect inflation to be 0% absent mw increase.

The stuff that gets passed around as sane economic commentary on the right is mind-boggling.

I simplified it so progressive twatwaddles such as yourself can understand it. But the crux of the situation is that economics cannot handle someone being paid $15 an hour to add $5-$10 worth of value to a product or a service. In that situation, costs have to go up.

Wage growth equal to inflation is progress.
Losing 2.5% of buying power every year is horrible. This is exactly the reason MW should be indexed to inflation.

it still doesn't change the fact that paying people $15 for $10 worth of work is not economically viable.

Who says it's $10 worth of work?
Is $15/hr in today's dollar a better,same or worse value for the earner as compared to MW of the past? What is the standard? If you were to put past MW rates into 2016 real dollars, the MW would be $20+ to match buying power.

Economics say how much value a given task adds to a service or product. MW's in general fix part of the equation that determines the value of a service or product, without raising the end result of the equation, namely what a consumer is willing to pay for something. So if that remains fixed, other parts of the equation have to compensate.

Economics decide?
Nice, safe ambiguous answer.

Simple question. Should wages decrease over time or increase?
When talking about MW, shouldn't the standard be that it buy at least as much as it has in the past?

No, its the real answer, and it is what determines if paying someone $15 for a given job is economically viable or not.

A PERSON's wages should increase over time, as they gain experience and move on to more difficult and valuable labor. Overall wage's increase or decrease is decided by macro-economic factors, and will be further impacted by automation, which will only be increased if we keep thinking we can pay people more than they put back into the system.

And a person's buying power now vs. then is a pretty crappy comparison, considering the changes in technology and availability of services that were not around in the past at costs normal people could afford.

Total bullshit.
Buying power is everything when determining MW, otherwise what's the point?
No one should earn less than people did 30 or 50 years ago for the same work. There is no economic formula where that would even be the case.