The next minimum wage rate bill

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,090
Reaction score
129
Points
85
The next minimum wage rate bill: The next U.S. Congressional bill to increase the federal minimum wage rate, should be the last minimum rate bill to be passed and enacted.

That bill should set a targeted purchasing power value of no less than 125% of the minimum
‘s Febuary-1968 value. The minimum should be annually increased by uniform increments until it achieves its targeted value. Thereafter it should be annually monitored and adjusted to retain its purchasing value.
Democrats foolishly draft minimum rate bills in terms of dollars rather than of purchasing power. Consequentially, if and when the bills pass through congress, it’s always too little too late.
Respectfully, Supposn

Excerpted from the Politics forum:
To next U.S. Senate leader: Senator Schumer, since 1959 when I left the military service, I voted in every general election and failed to vote in extremely few Democratic primary elections. During President Obama’s first administration, the Democratic congressional majority shamelessly failed to pass and enact a minimum wage rate bill. I continue to vote within every general election, but since 2009, I have not voted as a registered Democrat. …
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
64,625
Reaction score
12,776
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Neumark and Shirley rounded up a total of 66 economics papers on the minimum wage, dating back to 1992, and tallied up what those papers found. (These studies tend to report a lot of numbers estimating the effects in different ways, so Neumark and Shirley asked the authors which estimates they felt best represented their findings; the vast majority responded, but Neumark and Shirley needed to pick themselves for the rest.) The upshot? About half of the papers found a statistically significant hit to employment from minimum-wage hikes, and another 30 percent found a negative effect that wasn’t statistically significant. As they put it, that’s “a clear preponderance of negative estimates.”

Minimum-Wage Debate: Not Much Has Changed | National Review
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,090
Reaction score
129
Points
85
Neumark and Shirley rounded up a total of 66 economics papers on the minimum wage, dating back to 1992, and tallied up what those papers found. (These studies tend to report a lot of numbers estimating the effects in different ways, so Neumark and Shirley asked the authors which estimates they felt best represented their findings; the vast majority responded, but Neumark and Shirley needed to pick themselves for the rest.) The upshot? About half of the papers found a statistically significant hit to employment from minimum-wage hikes, and another 30 percent found a negative effect that wasn’t statistically significant. As they put it, that’s “a clear preponderance of negative estimates.”

Minimum-Wage Debate: Not Much Has Changed | National Review
Toddsterpatriot, 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.

However, it does not regulate other than the minimum applicable rate; (i.e. it does not regulate (all) wage rates and that’s NOT its purpose). Each increase of the federal minimum wage rate has increased its purchasing power and has been of net economic benefit to our nation. Respectfully, Supposn
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
69,028
Reaction score
33,057
Points
2,300
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
The next minimum wage rate bill: The next U.S. Congressional bill to increase the federal minimum wage rate, should be the last minimum rate bill to be passed and enacted.

That bill should set a targeted purchasing power value of no less than 125% of the minimum
‘s Febuary-1968 value. The minimum should be annually increased by uniform increments until it achieves its targeted value. Thereafter it should be annually monitored and adjusted to retain its purchasing value.
Democrats foolishly draft minimum rate bills in terms of dollars rather than of purchasing power. Consequentially, if and when the bills pass through congress, it’s always too little too late.
Respectfully, Supposn

Excerpted from the Politics forum:
To next U.S. Senate leader: Senator Schumer, since 1959 when I left the military service, I voted in every general election and failed to vote in extremely few Democratic primary elections. During President Obama’s first administration, the Democratic congressional majority shamelessly failed to pass and enact a minimum wage rate bill. I continue to vote within every general election, but since 2009, I have not voted as a registered Democrat. …
There's no role of The State to control the prices of anything at all, let alone labor.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
69,028
Reaction score
33,057
Points
2,300
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Neumark and Shirley rounded up a total of 66 economics papers on the minimum wage, dating back to 1992, and tallied up what those papers found. (These studies tend to report a lot of numbers estimating the effects in different ways, so Neumark and Shirley asked the authors which estimates they felt best represented their findings; the vast majority responded, but Neumark and Shirley needed to pick themselves for the rest.) The upshot? About half of the papers found a statistically significant hit to employment from minimum-wage hikes, and another 30 percent found a negative effect that wasn’t statistically significant. As they put it, that’s “a clear preponderance of negative estimates.”

Minimum-Wage Debate: Not Much Has Changed | National Review
Toddsterpatriot, 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.

However, it does not regulate other than the minimum applicable rate; (i.e. it does not regulate (all) wage rates and that’s NOT its purpose. Each increase of the federal minimum wage rate has increased its purchasing power and has been of net economic benefit to our nation. Respectfully, Supposn
"... 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."

That's your story, pal.....Supposing your premise is valid (which I certainly do not), where's your evidence that it has ever been effective to achieve those ends?
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,090
Reaction score
129
Points
85
There's no role of The State to control the prices of anything at all, let alone labor.
Oddball,
... However, it [i.e. the federal minimum wage rate] does not regulate other than the minimum applicable rate; (i.e. it does not regulate (all) wage rates and that’s NOT its purpose). Each increase of the federal minimum wage rate has increased its purchasing power and has been of net economic benefit to our nation. ...
Respectfully, Supposn
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
69,028
Reaction score
33,057
Points
2,300
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
There's no role of The State to control the prices of anything at all, let alone labor.
Oddball,
... However, it [i.e. the federal minimum wage rate] does not regulate other than the minimum applicable rate; (i.e. it does not regulate (all) wage rates and that’s NOT its purpose). Each increase of the federal minimum wage rate has increased its purchasing power and has been of net economic benefit to our nation. ...
Respectfully, Supposn
IOW, you have no evidence whatsoever that there's a constitutional role for The State to control labor prices.

We're done here.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
64,625
Reaction score
12,776
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Neumark and Shirley rounded up a total of 66 economics papers on the minimum wage, dating back to 1992, and tallied up what those papers found. (These studies tend to report a lot of numbers estimating the effects in different ways, so Neumark and Shirley asked the authors which estimates they felt best represented their findings; the vast majority responded, but Neumark and Shirley needed to pick themselves for the rest.) The upshot? About half of the papers found a statistically significant hit to employment from minimum-wage hikes, and another 30 percent found a negative effect that wasn’t statistically significant. As they put it, that’s “a clear preponderance of negative estimates.”

Minimum-Wage Debate: Not Much Has Changed | National Review
Toddsterpatriot, 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.

However, it does not regulate other than the minimum applicable rate; (i.e. it does not regulate (all) wage rates and that’s NOT its purpose). Each increase of the federal minimum wage rate has increased its purchasing power and has been of net economic benefit to our nation. Respectfully, Supposn

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.

To the extent it increases unemployment and stops young unskilled workers from getting their first job, it's a failure.

Each increase of the federal minimum wage rate has increased its purchasing power and has been of net economic benefit to our nation.

I don't believe you can prove that.
In fact, your favorite CBO study shows a hike to $15 would be a net loss to our nation.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
69,028
Reaction score
33,057
Points
2,300
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
I don't believe you can prove that.
In fact, your favorite CBO study shows a hike to $15 would be a net loss to our nation.
Actually, there's absolutely no way to prove that....It's what we call "unfalsifiable".

Lack of falsifiabliity is the go-to falacy of the economic central planner....Somethng they do appears to work, they claim all the credit....Something they do doesn't work, they simply didn't throw enough money at it or meddle in the marketplace enough.....But they're never ever wrong about anything.
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,090
Reaction score
129
Points
85
To the extent it increases unemployment and stops young unskilled workers from getting their first job, it's a failure.
… In fact, your favorite CBO study shows a hike to $15 would be a net loss to our nation. Thanks
Toddsterpatriot, the U.S. congresses’ that passed, and the presidents that signed off and enacted each of the Fair Lab Practices acts disagreed with you and the U.S. Supreme Courts have upheld those acts constitutionality.

The U.S. Congressional Budget office’s reports’ estimates regarding the proposed “Raise the Wage” act were of net increased wage rates among USA’s wage earners and the wages of their families and reductions of their incidences and extents of poverty. CBO’s projections regarding the proposed “Raise the Wage” act were of
net increased wage rates among USA’s wage earners and the wages of their families. It would not net reduce incomes among any other than the very highest income families, and those reductions would be not be much more than 1/3 of a percent of those famillies’ incomes.

This is not the dismal picture that you perceive, but rather of an act that would be economically and socially net beneficial to our nation. Respectfully, Supposn
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
64,625
Reaction score
12,776
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
To the extent it increases unemployment and stops young unskilled workers from getting their first job, it's a failure.
… In fact, your favorite CBO study shows a hike to $15 would be a net loss to our nation. Thanks
Toddsterpatriot, the U.S. congresses’ that passed, and the presidents that signed off and enacted each of the Fair Lab Practices acts disagreed with you and the U.S. Supreme Courts have upheld those acts constitutionality.

The U.S. Congressional Budget office’s reports’ estimates regarding the proposed “Raise the Wage” act were of net increased wage rates among USA’s wage earners and the wages of their families and reductions of their incidences and extents of poverty. CBO’s projections regarding the proposed “Raise the Wage” act were of
net increased wage rates among USA’s wage earners and the wages of their families. It would not net reduce incomes among any other than the very highest income families, and those reductions would be not be much more than 1/3 of a percent of those famillies’ incomes.

This is not the dismal picture that you perceive, but rather of an act that would be economically and socially net beneficial to our nation. Respectfully, Supposn
Toddsterpatriot, the U.S. congresses’ that passed, and the presidents that signed off and enacted each of the Fair Lab Practices acts disagreed with you and the U.S. Supreme Courts have upheld those acts constitutionality.

Congresses and Presidents pass lots of legislation that's a net loss to the nation.

I hope this isn't the first time you're hearing that.

The U.S. Congressional Budget office’s reports’ estimates regarding the proposed “Raise the Wage” act were of net increased wage rates among USA’s wage earners and the wages of their families and reductions of their incidences and extents of poverty.

What was the largest increase in family incomes from more than doubling minimum wage?
Was it 5.3%? Was it about $600?

Not much of an increase in income considering the jump from $7.25 to $15.

This is not the dismal picture that you perceive, but rather of an act that would be economically and socially net beneficial to our nation.

Your own source said it was a net loss.
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,090
Reaction score
129
Points
85
Toddsterpatriot, your removal of the Trump name from your name’s symbol indicates you apparently have some sense of shame.
Have you ceased whining because the majority of general election and electoral college voters didn’t vote for Donald?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
64,625
Reaction score
12,776
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Toddsterpatriot, your removal of the Trump name from your name’s symbol indicates you apparently have some sense of shame.
Have you ceased whining because the majority of general election and electoral college voters didn’t vote for Donald?
your removal of the Trump name from your name’s symbol indicates you apparently have some sense of shame.

I removed it because you were such a whiney bitch.
My avatar is a tribute to YOU!
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,090
Reaction score
129
Points
85
... What was the largest increase in family incomes from more than doubling minimum wage?
Was it 5.3%? Was it about $600? Not much of an increase in income considering the jump from $7.25 to $15. ...
Toddsterpatriot yes, 5.3% and $600 was the NET GAIN after wages replaced non-wage incomes such as public assistance and unemployment insurance benefits.
A net income reduction of 1/3 of a percent from the highest income families as a trade-off for:
net increased wage rates among USA’s wage earners and the wages of their families and reductions of their incidences and extents of poverty, and net increased wage rates among USA’s wage earners and the wages of their families? That ain’t a bad trade.
Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
64,625
Reaction score
12,776
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
... What was the largest increase in family incomes from more than doubling minimum wage?
Was it 5.3%? Was it about $600? Not much of an increase in income considering the jump from $7.25 to $15. ...
Toddsterpatriot yes, 5.3% and $600 was the NET GAIN after wages replaced non-wage incomes such as public assistance and unemployment insurance benefits.
A net income reduction of 1/3 of a percent from the highest income families as a trade-off for:
net increased wage rates among USA’s wage earners and the wages of their families and reductions of their incidences and extents of poverty, and net increased wage rates among USA’s wage earners and the wages of their families? That ain’t a bad trade.
Respectfully, Supposn
A net income reduction of 1/3 of the highest income families as a trade-off for:
net increased wage rates among USA’s wage earners and the wages of their families and reductions of their incidences and extents of poverty,


Don't forget, 1.3 million fewer jobs, lower income for business owners and higher prices [lower real wages] for everyone.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
69,028
Reaction score
33,057
Points
2,300
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
... What was the largest increase in family incomes from more than doubling minimum wage?
Was it 5.3%? Was it about $600? Not much of an increase in income considering the jump from $7.25 to $15. ...
Toddsterpatriot yes, 5.3% and $600 was the NET GAIN after wages replaced non-wage incomes such as public assistance and unemployment insurance benefits.
A net income reduction of 1/3 of a percent from the highest income families as a trade-off for:
net increased wage rates among USA’s wage earners and the wages of their families and reductions of their incidences and extents of poverty, and net increased wage rates among USA’s wage earners and the wages of their families? That ain’t a bad trade.
Respectfully, Supposn
Where's your direct and verifiable evidence of cause and effect?

Where is the article and clause in the Constitution that gives The State such a role to play the role of economic God, in choosing such tradeoffs?

Please show your math.
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,090
Reaction score
129
Points
85
Where's your direct and verifiable evidence of cause and effect?
Where is the article and clause in the Constitution that gives The State such a role to play the role of economic God, in choosing such tradeoffs?
Please show your math.
Oddball, I defer to the Congressional Budget Office’s considered projections and the Supreme Court’s thus far supporting all such similar legislative acts as being Constitutional. Respectfully, Supposn
 
OP
S

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,090
Reaction score
129
Points
85
... What was the largest increase in family incomes from more than doubling minimum wage?
Was it 5.3%? Was it about $600? Not much of an increase in income considering the jump from $7.25 to $15. ...
Toddsterpatriot yes, 5.3% and $600 was the NET GAIN after wages replaced non-wage incomes such as public assistance and unemployment insurance benefits. ...
A net income reduction of 1/3 of the highest income families as a trade-off for:
net increased wage rates among USA’s wage earners and the wages of their families and reductions of their incidences and extents of poverty,


Don't forget, 1.3 million fewer jobs, lower income for business owners and higher prices [lower real wages] for everyone.
ToddsterPatriot, referring to How Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage Could Affect Employment and Family Income | Congressional Budget Office (cbo.gov) How Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage Could Affect Employment and Family Income | Congressional Budget Office (cbo.gov) , “Raise the Wage Act, as passed” option, graph of “Average Percentage Change in Real Family Income, by Income Group”:
The graph indicates only 2025 highest income families are projected to experience any net reductions of real family total incomes (rather total wages. Those incomes are reduced by less than 1/5 of a percent. All other family total incomes are increased or materially unaffected.

Respectfully, Supposn
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top