Optimum Minimum Wages can be calculated

[Supposn]

... I'm in favor of increasing the purchasing power for all USA wages which requires that the purchasing power of our median wage rate be increased.
Admirable goal, but you can't mandate that. And, coincidently, your IC wishes would erode purchasing power.

ToddsterPatriot, but we can mandate increasing the federal minimum wage rate's purchasing power.

The federal minimum wage rate's of benefit, but not of equal benefit to all wage scales. The minimum rate's effect upon a job's rate has been proportionally the difference between the two rates, and it's an inverse relationship. Those earning the least benefited more, and those earning the most benefited proportionally less due to the minimum rate. But the federal minimum rate bolsters all wages.

Although the working poor proportionally benefits more, those earning the median wage have also befitted from the federal minimum wage rate.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Regarding Wikipedia's version of the Import Certificate proposal:
Trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP and thus drag upon their nation's numbers of jobs. They are particularly detrimental to employees and their dependents, (which are by far the predominant portion of USA's middle-income earners. Additionally, trade deficits are detrimental to enterprises more dependent upon our nation's middle-income population segment's financial well being.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

... The quickest way to increase the wages of low skilled and unskilled workers is to stop allowing millions of low skilled and unskilled illegal aliens from coming across the border annually.

ToddsterPatriot, I'm not opposed to real border security which is not simply a fence.

How about exercising eminent domain where necessary and implanting sophisticated sensing devices along our broad; a “no passage” ribbon of land along our borders?

We should be reasonably capable of intercepting almost all persons attempting to cross our borders illegally.

A substantial portion of illegal residents came in on public transportation and simply remained here. Some flew in first class but more often they rode in with coach tickets.

Are we going to seriously monitor crop pickers from Mexico?

Deliberately hunting down those who have made their home in our nation and for many years have been net contributors to our society is a poor use of our resources and does us net harm.

I'm opposed to catch and release, but we should be able to punish second-time offenders without financially punishing ourselves.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... I'm in favor of increasing the purchasing power for all USA wages which requires that the purchasing power of our median wage rate be increased.
Admirable goal, but you can't mandate that. And, coincidently, your IC wishes would erode purchasing power.

ToddsterPatriot, but we can mandate increasing the federal minimum wage rate's purchasing power.

The federal minimum wage rate's of benefit, but not of equal benefit to all wage scales. The minimum rate's effect upon a job's rate has been proportionally the difference between the two rates, and it's an inverse relationship. Those earning the least benefited more, and those earning the most benefited proportionally less due to the minimum rate. But the federal minimum rate bolsters all wages.

Although the working poor proportionally benefits more, those earning the median wage have also befitted from the federal minimum wage rate.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Regarding Wikipedia's version of the Import Certificate proposal:
Trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP and thus drag upon their nation's numbers of jobs. They are particularly detrimental to employees and their dependents, (which are by far the predominant portion of USA's middle-income earners. Additionally, trade deficits are detrimental to enterprises more dependent upon our nation's middle-income population segment's financial well being.

Respectfully, Supposn

The federal minimum wage rate's of benefit, but not of equal benefit to all wage scales.

Raise it too high and you eliminate opportunity for new, young workers.

Trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP and thus drag upon their nation's numbers of jobs.

I've already shown that the trade deficit from oil imports, for example, increase our GDP and jobs more than eliminating oil imports.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... The quickest way to increase the wages of low skilled and unskilled workers is to stop allowing millions of low skilled and unskilled illegal aliens from coming across the border annually.

ToddsterPatriot, I'm not opposed to real border security which is not simply a fence.

How about exercising eminent domain where necessary and implanting sophisticated sensing devices along our broad; a “no passage” ribbon of land along our borders?

We should be reasonably capable of intercepting almost all persons attempting to cross our borders illegally.

A substantial portion of illegal residents came in on public transportation and simply remained here. Some flew in first class but more often they rode in with coach tickets.

Are we going to seriously monitor crop pickers from Mexico?

Deliberately hunting down those who have made their home in our nation and for many years have been net contributors to our society is a poor use of our resources and does us net harm.

I'm opposed to catch and release, but we should be able to punish second-time offenders without financially punishing ourselves.

Respectfully, Supposn

Are we going to seriously monitor crop pickers from Mexico?

Is that all who cross?

Deliberately hunting down those who have made their home in our nation and for many years have been net contributors to our society is a poor use of our resources and does us net harm.

It'll raise wages for low skilled citizens.

A substantial portion of illegal residents came in on public transportation and simply remained here. Some flew in first class but more often they rode in with coach tickets.

Yes, we need a better way to catch people who overstay their visas.

 

[Andylusion]

... I'm in favor of increasing the purchasing power for all USA wages which requires that the purchasing power of our median wage rate be increased.
Admirable goal, but you can't mandate that. And, coincidently, your IC wishes would erode purchasing power.

ToddsterPatriot, but we can mandate increasing the federal minimum wage rate's purchasing power.

The federal minimum wage rate's of benefit, but not of equal benefit to all wage scales. The minimum rate's effect upon a job's rate has been proportionally the difference between the two rates, and it's an inverse relationship. Those earning the least benefited more, and those earning the most benefited proportionally less due to the minimum rate. But the federal minimum rate bolsters all wages.

Although the working poor proportionally benefits more, those earning the median wage have also befitted from the federal minimum wage rate.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Regarding Wikipedia's version of the Import Certificate proposal:
Trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP and thus drag upon their nation's numbers of jobs. They are particularly detrimental to employees and their dependents, (which are by far the predominant portion of USA's middle-income earners. Additionally, trade deficits are detrimental to enterprises more dependent upon our nation's middle-income population segment's financial well being.

Respectfully, Supposn

This is so asinine. First, if that worked, then 2010, and the years following should have been a fantastic boom for the lower and middle class.

From 2007 to 2009, the minimum wage increased 38%. That's a huge increase. On top of that increase, was the numerous states that all increased their state minimum wage, above the Federal minimum wage. The Ohio minimum wage was $7 when the Fed was $6.50, and today is $8.30, when the Fed is $7.25.

Now if your claim was true, and if the minimum wage increased buying power of the lower and middle class, then 2007 till now should have been boom years.

Is that not the claim? You say that the minimum wage should increase the buying power of the lower and middle class. And logically if you drastically increase the buying power of the lower and middle class, then there should be an economic boom.

Instead we had a bust.

Now ignorant people say "it was the banks!".... which is ridiculous for a number of reasons, but regardless, what were the problem areas in banking? It was the sub-prime loans, which as we all know were mostly purchased by the super wealthy...... or no, they were purchased by the lower and middle class, which according to the logic you are suggesting, should have had more purchasing power now that they had higher minimum wage.

Did that happen? No they defaulted. Why did all these people that supposedly had more purchasing power, end up defaulting on all their loans?

Because the entire concept is flawed and stupid.

If I'm making stuff and selling it to you, and you're making stuff and selling it to me. Demanding that my labor cost goes up, only forces me to drive up product prices, which is prices you'll have to pay. And equally your higher wages will force you to raise prices on me.

You can't get paid more, without charging me more. And I can't get paid more, without charging you more.

The entire concept is brainlessly stupid. Hayek once said, that the reasons Socialists don't have any understanding of economics, is because if they ever did, they would cease to be socialist.

Hayek is right.

Socialism can't work without mythology. If you don't believe in the myth that someone else will pay for it, then your entire ideology falls apart. You believe that you can raise the minimum wage, and "someone else will pay for it". You demand government health care, and think "someone else will pay for it".

This is why that moron Bernie sanders says we will just have a guaranteed job for everyone through the government, and you ask him where he pretends to get the money from, and end up with blank stares. Yet all the little Social-lemmings run straight off the cliff of insanity with Bernie because deep inside you want to believe someone else will pay for it.

No. It won't work. It's never worked. There is zero evidence to support this idiocrasy, and tons that prove the opposite.

 

[Andylusion]

... The quickest way to increase the wages of low skilled and unskilled workers is to stop allowing millions of low skilled and unskilled illegal aliens from coming across the border annually.

ToddsterPatriot, I'm not opposed to real border security which is not simply a fence.

How about exercising eminent domain where necessary and implanting sophisticated sensing devices along our broad; a “no passage” ribbon of land along our borders?

We should be reasonably capable of intercepting almost all persons attempting to cross our borders illegally.

A substantial portion of illegal residents came in on public transportation and simply remained here. Some flew in first class but more often they rode in with coach tickets.

Are we going to seriously monitor crop pickers from Mexico?

Deliberately hunting down those who have made their home in our nation and for many years have been net contributors to our society is a poor use of our resources and does us net harm.

I'm opposed to catch and release, but we should be able to punish second-time offenders without financially punishing ourselves.

Respectfully, Supposn

Look.... you either believe that we shouldn't have random people walking into our country, with an unknown background, with unknown purposes, with unknown connections.... or you don't.

Apparently the left wing has no problem with people completely violating our laws. Shockingly..... shocking I say.... most of us do have a problem with that.

No regardless of your mindless love of people who violate laws.........

The fact is, he's right on this particular point. If you want an economically friendly way of increasing the wages of low skill employees.... the fastest and most effective way is to reduce the number of low-skill employees. That's a fact. Supply and demand dude. You reduce the supply, while demand remains steady, the price goes up.

If you reduce the number of low-skilled employees enough, you can end up with McDonald's in Denmark, paying $16/hour to flip burgers over. They don't have minimum wage laws. It's simply the supply of people in the low-skill market is small. So competition for low-skill workers has driven up the price.

Now if you are going to be the smallest bit consistent in your desire to see wages rise, then cutting illegal immigration will do that.

 

[Supposn]

Raise it too high and you eliminate opportunity for new, young workers.

I've already shown that the trade deficit from oil imports, for example, increase our GDP and jobs more than eliminating oil imports.

ToddsterPatriot, It's conceivable that setting the federal minimum wage rate too high could somehow be economically detrimental; but it would not cause the elimination of “opportunity for new, young workers”.

Considering the concept of the federal minimum wage rate, within what nation and when in nations' entire history, has a similar minimum wage rate ever been too great?

The purchasing power of the minimum rate peaked in February of 1968; it would have then been more economically beneficial if it were then substantially higher.

I'm among the proponents for USA adopting the improved version of a trade policy as described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificate's” article. Regarding other concepts, you should address your questions regarding other concepts, to those concepts' advocates.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Raise it too high and you eliminate opportunity for new, young workers.

I've already shown that the trade deficit from oil imports, for example, increase our GDP and jobs more than eliminating oil imports.

ToddsterPatriot, It's conceivable that setting the federal minimum wage rate too high could somehow be economically detrimental; but it would not cause the elimination of “opportunity for new, young workers”.

Considering the concept of the federal minimum wage rate, within what nation and when in nations' entire history, has a similar minimum wage rate ever been too great?

The purchasing power of the minimum rate peaked in February of 1968; it would have then been more economically beneficial if it were then substantially higher.

I'm among the proponents for USA adopting the improved version of a trade policy as described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificate's” article. Regarding other concepts, you should address your questions regarding other concepts, to those concepts' advocates.

Respectfully, Supposn

It's conceivable that setting the federal minimum wage rate too high could somehow be economically detrimental; but it would not cause the elimination of “opportunity for new, young workers”.

If a new worker with no skills and little experience can create $9 of value per hour, but you've mandated he be paid the equivalent of $17.50 per hour, who is going to hire him?

The purchasing power of the minimum rate peaked in February of 1968; it would have then been more economically beneficial if it were then substantially higher.

If you can figure out a way to make low skilled workers more valuable, the market would pay them more.....
with no need for a government mandate.

I'm among the proponents for USA adopting the improved version of a trade policy as described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificate's” article.

I noticed. I've been pointing out the flaws in that idea since I first ran across it.

Regarding other concepts, you should address your questions regarding other concepts, to those concepts' advocates.

You didn't advocate boosting the minimum wage 15% a year until it hits $17.50, adjusted for inflation?

 

[hadit]

Raise it too high and you eliminate opportunity for new, young workers.

I've already shown that the trade deficit from oil imports, for example, increase our GDP and jobs more than eliminating oil imports.

ToddsterPatriot, It's conceivable that setting the federal minimum wage rate too high could somehow be economically detrimental; but it would not cause the elimination of “opportunity for new, young workers”.

Considering the concept of the federal minimum wage rate, within what nation and when in nations' entire history, has a similar minimum wage rate ever been too great?

The purchasing power of the minimum rate peaked in February of 1968; it would have then been more economically beneficial if it were then substantially higher.

I'm among the proponents for USA adopting the improved version of a trade policy as described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificate's” article. Regarding other concepts, you should address your questions regarding other concepts, to those concepts' advocates.

Respectfully, Supposn

If we can arbitrarily raise the MW with no ill effects, why not just go to $100/hour and be done with it? Obviously, we can't.

 

[jwoodie]

Minimum wage for what- part time work, on the job training, casual labor, etc.? Raising it will only diminish job opportunities for unskilled labor. What then- prohibit employers from replacing these jobs with automation? We now have an insane system in which welfare competes with employment for low skill individuals, thus proving a disincentive to seek work and get ahead. We should instead be providing incentives to seek work, but without disincentives to the employers who are proving these jobs.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There is only one way to correct wages.

Tell women to get back in the homes where they belong.

And that is no slight on women at all. they belong in the home because they are well suited to running a home and or raising children. Being at home certainly does not devalue their contributions to society, in fact it actually increases their value.

Just on the economic side of things, what is the first thing employees would have to do if half the existing labor force suddenly wasn't competing for jobs? Well, it's obvious. They would have to increase wages in order to attract employees.

Of course certain industries are better suited for women then men, teaching, porn, that sorta thing, but in general women have hurt both themselves and society by insisting that they can do anything men can do.

They can't, and men can't do anything a woman can do either.

Do you think that is really a viable alternative at this point? I think the cat is pretty much out of the bag as far as women working goes.

50 million women now working here is not a economic problem any more than a billion Chinese working in their economy is a problem.

What are you talking about? OF COURSE women in the work place has created a myriad of problems, from an overabundance of labor to keylatch children to everything in between.

China has grown at 8% a year for 40 years with women being 50% of work force. Billions of women in the work force there or millions here do not create unemployment. Obviously jobs are proportional to working population.

 

[Andylusion]

Raise it too high and you eliminate opportunity for new, young workers.

I've already shown that the trade deficit from oil imports, for example, increase our GDP and jobs more than eliminating oil imports.

ToddsterPatriot, It's conceivable that setting the federal minimum wage rate too high could somehow be economically detrimental; but it would not cause the elimination of “opportunity for new, young workers”.

Considering the concept of the federal minimum wage rate, within what nation and when in nations' entire history, has a similar minimum wage rate ever been too great?

The purchasing power of the minimum rate peaked in February of 1968; it would have then been more economically beneficial if it were then substantially higher.

I'm among the proponents for USA adopting the improved version of a trade policy as described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificate's” article. Regarding other concepts, you should address your questions regarding other concepts, to those concepts' advocates.

Respectfully, Supposn

If we can arbitrarily raise the MW with no ill effects, why not just go to $100/hour and be done with it? Obviously, we can't.

Exactly. When people say that the minimum wage actually doesn't cause problems, that is the most insane position anyone can possibly take.

If raising the minimum wage does not cause job loss.... Ok.... I want a million dollars a year to flip burgers at Burger King. Let's see how that works.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If we can arbitrarily raise the MW with no ill effects, why not just go to $100/hour and be done with it? Obviously, we can't.

Why not $100 for entry level, $200 for mid level , and $300 for upper level? No poverty no problems anymore.. If liberals knew the answer they would not be liberals. Liberalism depends on pure ignorance.

 

[Supposn]

" I'm in favor of increasing the purchasing power for all USA wages which requires that the purchasing power of our median wage rate be increased, which is unlikely to occur if the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage rate is not also increased. "

Here's the problem with this, raising the federal minimum wage does not increase the purchasing power for all US wages. Why? Because generally when you raise wages prices go up correspondingly. So you get more money but it doesn't go as far as it used to. Where is the money that goes to pay higher wages going to come from? Primarily from consumers, that's where. IOW, there's no free lunch, and to cap it off when you increase cost of labor then employers will turn more and more to automation, which means fewer jobs. How is this not intuitive, we're talking basic Econ 101 here.

Task0778, the federal minimum wage law specifies only the legally permitted minimum wage rate for most USA employees. But due to the concept and practices of wage differentials, it affects all USA wage scales.

Thus, it has a greater effect upon product prices that reflect greater proportions of labor within their costs, and/or greater proportions of lower-wage labor within their costs. (Similarly, the minimum rate has a lesser effect upon product prices that reflect lesser proportions of labor within their costs, and/or lesser proportions of lower-wage labor within their costs.

Due to the minimum wage's unequal effect upon all wage scales, and those wage scales unequal effects upon individual product prices, the proportional increase of USA's product prices due to increases of the federal minimum wage rate is significantly less than the minimum rate's proportional increase.

Increases of the federal minimum wage rate have never been among the primary drivers of U.S. Dollar's inflation. Additionally, this explains why increased federal minimum wage always have increased the purchasing powers of USA's aggregate employees' wages.

Your implying otherwise is incorrect. The purchasing powers of USA's aggregate wages increase significantly more proportionally than the increases of the minimum rate than induced those purchasing powers' increases.

The vast preponderance of USA's population's middle-income segment are employees and their dependents. The working poor proportionally benefit more, the middle-income employees proportionally benefit less. USA's aggregate employees all benefit due to increased federal minimum wage's purchasing power. Due to U.S. Congress permitting minimum rate's purchasing power to decline, all USA employees, and their dependents, and enterprises that are more dependent upon the well-being of USA's population's middle- income segment have all been detrimentally affected.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

... I'm among the proponents for three economic proposals in particular:
(1) Each Labor Day, the federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate should be cost-of-living-adjusted, (COLA'd) by pegging it to a federal cost-price-index number. This method has been successfully retaining Social Security retirement benefits' purchasing powers.
(2) Each Thanksgiving day until the FMW rate attains 150% of its February 1, 1968 purchasing power, the rate should be increased by an additional 15%. The nation would have benefited if the minimum's purchasing power had been further increased since its peak value, rather than the significant decline we have experienced.
(3) Enact the trade policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article. …
… These three proposals do not materially affect our annual federal budgets; Although, there are initial start-up costs necessary to enacting the self-funding Import Certificate policy.
They all contribute to increasing our median-wage which is critical to our middle income earning segment of our population. ...

ToddsterPatriot, I did not advocate the minimum rate should be increased to $17.50 per hour or any finite numbers of dollars per hour; I advocated the minimum be adjusted until it achieves 150% of its February 1, 1968 purchasing power.

I did not advocate a specific date for achieving the minimum's goal-rate; I advocated the minimum be annually increased by an additional 15% until the FMW rate attains 150% of its February 1, 1968 purchasing power. ...

You didn't advocate boosting the minimum wage 15% a year until it hits $17.50, adjusted for inflation?​

No, I did not. Respectfully, Supposn​

 

[Slyhunter]

Every automated job should subsidize a poor person.

 

[Slyhunter]

I got an idea. Mexico should raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour and I'll immigrate there.

 

[Supposn]

... Regarding Wikipedia's version of the Import Certificate proposal:
Trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP and thus drag upon their nation's numbers of jobs. ...

Trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP and thus drag upon their nation's numbers of jobs.
I've already shown that the trade deficit from oil imports, for example, increase our GDP and jobs more than eliminating oil imports.

ToddsterPatriot, I was inadvertently in error. The sentence should begin with the word “Annual”; “Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP ...”.

Wikipedia's The trade policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article is not “overly” concerned with individual trade transactions. But it's much less tolerant of its nation experiencing a sustained trade deficit. Within a USA Import Certificate policy, I consider, and I believe the markets would consider a year's duration of any substantial USA trade deficit as being too much for too long.

Wikipedia's explanation explicitly excludes petroleum from being subject to the Import Certificate policy.
I don't know how or why you believe petroleum imports, which would not be affected by this proposal, is germane to the discussion of the proposal.

Respectfully Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... I'm among the proponents for three economic proposals in particular:
(1) Each Labor Day, the federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate should be cost-of-living-adjusted, (COLA'd) by pegging it to a federal cost-price-index number. This method has been successfully retaining Social Security retirement benefits' purchasing powers.
(2) Each Thanksgiving day until the FMW rate attains 150% of its February 1, 1968 purchasing power, the rate should be increased by an additional 15%. The nation would have benefited if the minimum's purchasing power had been further increased since its peak value, rather than the significant decline we have experienced.
(3) Enact the trade policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article. …
… These three proposals do not materially affect our annual federal budgets; Although, there are initial start-up costs necessary to enacting the self-funding Import Certificate policy.
They all contribute to increasing our median-wage which is critical to our middle income earning segment of our population. ...

ToddsterPatriot, I did not advocate the minimum rate should be increased to $17.50 per hour or any finite numbers of dollars per hour; I advocated the minimum be adjusted until it achieves 150% of its February 1, 1968 purchasing power.

I did not advocate a specific date for achieving the minimum's goal-rate; I advocated the minimum be annually increased by an additional 15% until the FMW rate attains 150% of its February 1, 1968 purchasing power. ...

You didn't advocate boosting the minimum wage 15% a year until it hits $17.50, adjusted for inflation?​

No, I did not. Respectfully, Supposn​

You didn't advocate boosting the minimum wage 15% a year until it hits $17.50, adjusted for inflation?

No, I did not. Respectfully, Supposn

You did, right here.......

Each Thanksgiving day until the FMW rate attains 150% of its February 1, 1968 purchasing power, the rate should be increased by an additional 15%.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... Regarding Wikipedia's version of the Import Certificate proposal:
Trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP and thus drag upon their nation's numbers of jobs. ...

Trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP and thus drag upon their nation's numbers of jobs.
I've already shown that the trade deficit from oil imports, for example, increase our GDP and jobs more than eliminating oil imports.

ToddsterPatriot, I was inadvertently in error. The sentence should begin with the word “Annual”; “Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP ...”.

Wikipedia's The trade policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article is not “overly” concerned with individual trade transactions. But it's much less tolerant of its nation experiencing a sustained trade deficit. Within a USA Import Certificate policy, I consider, and I believe the markets would consider a year's duration of any substantial USA trade deficit as being too much for too long.

Wikipedia's explanation explicitly excludes petroleum from being subject to the Import Certificate policy.
I don't know how or why you believe petroleum imports, which would not be affected by this proposal, is germane to the discussion of the proposal.

Respectfully Supposn

I was inadvertently in error. The sentence should begin with the word “Annual”; “Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP ...”.

With annual added, your error remains.

Wikipedia's explanation explicitly excludes petroleum from being subject to the Import Certificate policy.

Yes.

I don't know how or why you believe petroleum imports, which would not be affected by this proposal, is germane to the discussion of the proposal.

Because your error wasn't about ICs, your error was claiming "Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP"