Why a federal minimum wage law?

[Supposn]

Toddsterpatriot, you continue to post "Two years ago, less than 0.7% of hourly workers made minimum wage".

this inconsequential statement. what's consequential is what proportion of employees in the USA are the working poor?

TooBFreak posted “It would take about $12 an hour to equal the minimum wage of 1968”. You deliberately or inadvertently misquoted or implied he posted something else.

I too regret that he did not provide internet links to credible or authoritative opinions or statistics supporting the contention that 40 percentiles of USA workers do not earn more than $15 per hour. I certainly do not doubt that contention and I believe it may still be valid if it were limited to only USA's full-time employees.

You doubt TooBFrank's posts, but you don't provide internet links to credible or authoritative opinions or statistics that refute his posts. ...​

ToddsterPatriot, in your post #11, you didn't actually doubt the relevance of TooBFreak's stating, $7.25 was “ a loss of about FORTY PERCENT below the minimum wage workers once made!”.

But rather you implied your inconsequential statement, "Two years ago, less than 0.7% of hourly workers made minimum wage", indicated TooBFrank's statement was incorrect.
You repeated the same ploy within your post #17. Additionally, within post #17 you implied that TooBFrank's stating the 1968 minimum wage rate's value was equivalent to approximately $12 today was irrelevant to this thread.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddsterpatriot, you continue to post "Two years ago, less than 0.7% of hourly workers made minimum wage".

this inconsequential statement. what's consequential is what proportion of employees in the USA are the working poor?

TooBFreak posted “It would take about $12 an hour to equal the minimum wage of 1968”. You deliberately or inadvertently misquoted or implied he posted something else.

I too regret that he did not provide internet links to credible or authoritative opinions or statistics supporting the contention that 40 percentiles of USA workers do not earn more than $15 per hour. I certainly do not doubt that contention and I believe it may still be valid if it were limited to only USA's full-time employees.

You doubt TooBFrank's posts, but you don't provide internet links to credible or authoritative opinions or statistics that refute his posts. ...​

ToddsterPatriot, in your post #11, you didn't actually doubt the relevance of TooBFreak's stating, $7.25 was “ a loss of about FORTY PERCENT below the minimum wage workers once made!”.

But rather you implied your inconsequential statement, "Two years ago, less than 0.7% of hourly workers made minimum wage", indicated TooBFrank's statement was incorrect.
You repeated the same ploy within your post #17. Additionally, within post #17 you implied that TooBFrank's stating the 1968 minimum wage rate's value was equivalent to approximately $12 today was irrelevant to this thread.

Respectfully, Supposn

you didn't actually doubt the relevance of TooBFreak's stating, $7.25 was “ a loss of about FORTY PERCENT below the minimum wage workers once made!”.

I probably said, "So what?"

But rather you implied your inconsequential statement, "Two years ago, less than 0.7% of hourly workers made minimum wage"

Well, seeing that only 0.7% of workers made 40% less than minimum wage workers 50 years ago, yes, that's an inconsequential number of low-skilled and unskilled workers making minimum wage.

Additionally, within post #17 you implied that TooBFrank's stating the 1968 minimum wage rate's value was equivalent to approximately $12 today was irrelevant to this thread.

Who cares about the silly thread?
Irrelevant to the country.
Completely irrelevant to the economy.

 

[Supposn]

Is Supposn ever going to provide proof for his claims......

ToddsterPatriot, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, (i.e. CBO) reported their predictions of HR 528 enactment's “Effects of Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage on Average Annual Real Family Income, 2025”. That complies with the supposition I've been posting. Can you find credible economists that disagree with that prediction?
Refer to table 4 within page 15 of
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf

Toddsterpatriot, you cannot handle the truth. I suppose you can find some credible economists that disagree with the CBO's predictions. Can you find one refuting their logical contention that the federal minimum wage rate to some extents affect all USA's wage rates? Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is Supposn ever going to provide proof for his claims......

ToddsterPatriot, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, (i.e. CBO) reported their predictions of HR 528 enactment's “Effects of Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage on Average Annual Real Family Income, 2025”. That complies with the supposition I've been posting. Can you find credible economists that disagree with that prediction?
Refer to table 4 within page 15 of
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf

Toddsterpatriot, you cannot handle the truth. I suppose you can find some credible economists that disagree with the CBO's predictions. Can you find one refuting their logical contention that the federal minimum wage rate to some extents affect all USA's wage rates? Respectfully, Supposn

Table 4, page 15.

At a $15 minimum wage, the average family making 150% of poverty level or less would see an average increase in income of $600 per year. Yawn.

That net effect is due to the combination of factors described above:
• Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion,
• Real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion,
• Real income for business owners would decrease by $14 billion, and
• Real income for consumers would decrease by $39 billion.

Net effect is negative.

Do you have any links that help your claims?

 

[danielpalos]

Toddsterpatriot, ... The numbers or percentages of employees that earn exactly $7.25/Hr. Is irrelevant. I suppose the minimum wage rate critically effects no less than the 20th percentile of USA's workers. Due to the $7.25 legally mandated minimum rate, the market rate for a job reached $11.35. The minimum rate had a critical effect upon that other lower wage rate. Why do you pretend that you do not understand this?

Respectfully, Supposn

I suppose the minimum wage rate critically effects no less than the 20th percentile of USA's workers.

Still waiting for your proof.

Why do you pretend that you do not understand this?

Why do you pretend that you proved your claim?
Do you not understand proof?

Toddsterpatriot, I made a supposition. Thus far all of the data I've found or was led to by others (including yourself), have been comparable and compatible with my suppositions. Everything is thus far fitting. You haven't cited any facts or logical reasoning that incompatible with my suppositions. You don't even have an alternative explanation as to how or why my supposition may prove invalid?

You claim that the Federal Minimum Wage impacts all wages.
You claim that if it was repealed, it would be a disaster for all US workers.

Now, you seem to have no evidence that the $10/hr new hires at my local McDonald's would be harmed,
or even notice if the MW was repealed. Their employer, unable to staff their location at $7.25, was forced to pay $10 in order to attract sufficient staff. If you can show that eliminating the $7.25 wage floor would allow, let alone compel, that location to reduce wages below $10, I'm willing to give your "evidence" a look.

If, like in the past, you simply state....well, of course.....wage differentials....yadda.....yadda....yadda, I'm going to continue to be skeptical of your claims.

So let's see your facts, data and logical reasoning.

...maybe, if that firm foregoes all other corporate welfare.

 

[Supposn]

]

... That net effect is due to the combination of factors described above:
• Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion,
• Real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion,
• Real income for business owners would decrease by $14 billion, and
• Real income for consumers would decrease by $39 billion.

Net effect is negative.
Do you have any links that help your claims?

ToddsterPatriot, regarding “That net effect is due to the combination of factors described above”
within : page 15 of
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf :

CBO reports on 3 different proposals. Nothing regarding a finite rather than a proportional or ratio or indexed value is applicable to all three proposals. Are these described net effects you're quoting applicable to the $15, or $12, or $10 option? I'm only discussing the report as it's applicable to HR 528, the $15 option. What you're quoting is not labeled or even implied as applicable to the $15 option.

Regarding what is labeled, or otherwise applicable to the $15 option, the net consequences of the proposal are favorable. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

]

... That net effect is due to the combination of factors described above:
• Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion,
• Real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion,
• Real income for business owners would decrease by $14 billion, and
• Real income for consumers would decrease by $39 billion.

Net effect is negative.
Do you have any links that help your claims?

ToddsterPatriot, regarding “That net effect is due to the combination of factors described above”
within : page 15 of
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf :

CBO reports on 3 different proposals. Nothing regarding a finite rather than a proportional or ratio or indexed value is applicable to all three proposals. Are these described net effects you're quoting applicable to the $15, or $12, or $10 option? I'm only discussing the report as it's applicable to HR 528, the $15 option. What you're quoting is not labeled or even implied as applicable to the $15 option.

Regarding what is labeled, or otherwise applicable to the $15 option, the net consequences of the proposal are favorable. Respectfully, Supposn

Are these described net effects you're quoting applicable to the $15, or $12, or $10 option?

You don't understand your own source? Maybe you can't handle the truth?


I'm only discussing the report as it's applicable to HR 528, the $15 option. What you're quoting is not labeled or even implied as applicable to the $15 option.

You think those numbers could apply to the $10 or $12 option? That's funny.

 

[Supposn]

I claim to understand the logic of those sincerely contending a minimum wage rate should not be a federal matter, and I respectfully disagree with them.

I have less or no respect for those stating USA's minimum wage rate laws are government control of wage rates. USA's federal and state minimum wage rates do not determine wage differentials. Those believing otherwise are at best revealing their ignorance regarding wage differentials or at worst, the psychopathic side of their character.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I claim to understand the logic of those sincerely contending a minimum wage rate should not be a federal matter, and I respectfully disagree with them.

I have less or no respect for those stating USA's minimum wage rate laws are government control of wage rates. USA's federal and state minimum wage rates do not determine wage differentials. Those believing otherwise are at best revealing their ignorance regarding wage differentials or at worst, the psychopathic side of their character.

Respectfully, Supposn

I point our your errors and leaps in logic....I must be a psychopath.

 

[Supposn]

I claim to understand the logic of those sincerely contending a minimum wage rate should not be a federal matter, and I respectfully disagree with them.
I have less or no respect for those stating USA's minimum wage rate laws are government control of wage rates. USA's federal and state minimum wage rates do not determine wage differentials. Those believing otherwise are at best revealing their ignorance regarding wage differentials or at worst, the psychopathic side of their character. ...

I point our your errors and leaps in logic....I must be a psychopath.

Toddsterpatriot, if the shoe fits ... . The federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate is of net social and economic benefit to our nation. It has never been among the major causes of the U.S. dollar’s inflation; on the contrary, it’s certainly among inflations’ victims.
No employees are poorer and no enterprises suffer any competitive disadvantage to any USA enterprises due to the FMW rate.

A great proportion of minimum rate opponents need whatever affirmation of their own worth that they can derive by being able to look down upon people experiencing lesser financial conditions. They cannot acknowledge even to themselves their fears of improving the financial conditions of others would consequentially reduce their own social status. That’s the essence of personal and political opposition to the FMW rate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I claim to understand the logic of those sincerely contending a minimum wage rate should not be a federal matter, and I respectfully disagree with them.
I have less or no respect for those stating USA's minimum wage rate laws are government control of wage rates. USA's federal and state minimum wage rates do not determine wage differentials. Those believing otherwise are at best revealing their ignorance regarding wage differentials or at worst, the psychopathic side of their character. ...

I point our your errors and leaps in logic....I must be a psychopath.

Toddsterpatriot, if the shoe fits ... . The federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate is of net social and economic benefit to our nation. It has never been among the major causes of the U.S. dollar’s inflation; on the contrary, it’s certainly among inflations’ victims.
No employees are poorer and no enterprises suffer any competitive disadvantage to any USA enterprises due to the FMW rate.

A great proportion of minimum rate opponents need whatever affirmation of their own worth that they can derive by being able to look down upon people experiencing lesser financial conditions. They cannot acknowledge even to themselves their fears of improving the financial conditions of others would consequentially reduce their own social status. That’s the essence of personal and political opposition to the FMW rate.

The federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate is of net social and economic benefit to our nation.

Meh.

It has never been among the major causes of the U.S. dollar’s inflation;

Never claimed it was.

No employees are poorer and no enterprises suffer any competitive disadvantage to any USA enterprises due to the FMW rate.

Except the ones never hired.

A great proportion of minimum rate opponents need whatever affirmation of their own worth that they can derive by being able to look down upon people experiencing lesser financial conditions.

I don't need to point out that you're a whiney twat to make myself feel better.

 

[OnePercenter]

Living Wage Calculator

Add 20% to your numbers to include housing costs.

 

[Supposn]

... No employees are poorer and no enterprises suffer any competitive disadvantage to any USA enterprises due to the FMW rate.

Except the ones never hired. ...

Toddsterpatriot, due to wage differentials, the federal minimum wage rate effects USA's entire spectrum of wage rates, but it doesn't effect them all equally. Unemployment insurance and public assistance is economically preferable to USA's wage rates “racing to the bottom”. Higher minimum rate's purchasing power is preferable to more public assistance.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... No employees are poorer and no enterprises suffer any competitive disadvantage to any USA enterprises due to the FMW rate.

Except the ones never hired. ...

Toddsterpatriot, due to wage differentials, the federal minimum wage rate effects USA's entire spectrum of wage rates, but it doesn't effect them all equally. Unemployment insurance and public assistance is economically preferable to USA's wage rates “racing to the bottom”. Higher minimum rate's purchasing power is preferable to more public assistance.

Respectfully, Supposn

due to wage differentials, the federal minimum wage rate effects USA's entire spectrum of wage rates,

Prove it.

 

[Picaro]

I claim to understand the logic of those sincerely contending a minimum wage rate should not be a federal matter, and I respectfully disagree with them.

I have less or no respect for those stating USA's minimum wage rate laws are government control of wage rates. USA's federal and state minimum wage rates do not determine wage differentials. Those believing otherwise are at best revealing their ignorance regarding wage differentials or at worst, the psychopathic side of their character.

Respectfully, Supposn

they are indeed sociopaths, and hypocrites as well; they have no problem with Federal laws re limited liability preventing their personal assets going to cover losses according to their stock holdings in a corporation, for instance, and think it's fine if their companies stiffed a bunch of debtors when ti went bankrupt, for instance. They're also fine with the brakes put on short sales by the Feds as well as many other freebies and subsidies they get from Federal, state, and local, govts. But a counter-balance like a Federally adjusted minimum wage makes them all spastic and hysterical. They even complain about having to pay taxes on their gambling winnings, as if they worked for the money or something when they have gains from the Big Casino once in a while. AS long as they have all those govt. protections for their gambling in stocks, they should be paying a 50% tax on that, and then we could lower payroll taxes and inventory taxes and taxes that are laid on productive people, but they hate that idea, too, since many of them aren't worth anything in the 'labor market', either, they just like pretending making '$20 an hour' makes them 'speshul' compared to those making $7.25 an hour, when in fact both those jobs should be paying close to the same, which would be embarrassing for a lot of them.

 

[Picaro]

... No employees are poorer and no enterprises suffer any competitive disadvantage to any USA enterprises due to the FMW rate.

Except the ones never hired. ...

Toddsterpatriot, due to wage differentials, the federal minimum wage rate effects USA's entire spectrum of wage rates, but it doesn't effect them all equally. Unemployment insurance and public assistance is economically preferable to USA's wage rates “racing to the bottom”. Higher minimum rate's purchasing power is preferable to more public assistance.

Respectfully, Supposn

Indeed; a higher adjusted for inflation minimum wage will reduce food stamps and other dependency programs. So will another decades long moratorium on immigration, for that matter. The break from the 1920's to 19656 allowed for many large groups to assimilate.