Why a federal minimum wage law?

[Supposn]

... In my state, you can earn as little as $7.25 which is a loss of about FORTY PERCENT below the minimum wage workers once made! And all pay is calculated accordingly. The lower the minimum wage the less they can justify paying everyone else. ...
... Now you know why the days of your father working and he'd be damned if his wife was going to work are gone to now where nearly every couple both members must hold down jobs just to break even.

my state, you can earn as little as $7.25 which is a loss of about FORTY PERCENT below the minimum wage workers once made!

Two years ago, less than 0.7% of hourly workers made minimum wage.

And all pay is calculated accordingly.

Baloney.

Now you know why the days of your father working and he'd be damned if his wife was going to work are gone

We buy much bigger houses now and spend more on almost everything.

Toddsterpatriot, I'm aware of some ignorant people who equate the term lower wage with only the minimum wage. I have a higher regard for your intelligence and knowledge.

All lower-wage rates are not precisely the minimum wage rate of $7.25 per hour. When you posted “Two years ago, less than 0.7% of hourly workers made minimum wage”, you were aware that the statement was not relevant to the percentage of USA lower-wage rate workers, (i.e. the working-poor) wage rates that are critically affected by the legally mandated minimum wage rate. You knowingly attempt to conceal the truth. Shame on you.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... In my state, you can earn as little as $7.25 which is a loss of about FORTY PERCENT below the minimum wage workers once made! And all pay is calculated accordingly. The lower the minimum wage the less they can justify paying everyone else. ...
... Now you know why the days of your father working and he'd be damned if his wife was going to work are gone to now where nearly every couple both members must hold down jobs just to break even.

my state, you can earn as little as $7.25 which is a loss of about FORTY PERCENT below the minimum wage workers once made!

Two years ago, less than 0.7% of hourly workers made minimum wage.

And all pay is calculated accordingly.

Baloney.

Now you know why the days of your father working and he'd be damned if his wife was going to work are gone

We buy much bigger houses now and spend more on almost everything.

Toddsterpatriot, I'm aware of some ignorant people who equate the term lower wage with only the minimum wage. I have a higher regard for your intelligence and knowledge.

All lower-wage rates are not precisely the minimum wage rate of $7.25 per hour. When you posted “Two years ago, less than 0.7% of hourly workers made minimum wage”, you were aware that the statement was not relevant to the percentage of USA lower-wage rate workers, (i.e. the working-poor) wage rates that are critically affected by the legally mandated minimum wage rate. You knowingly attempt to conceal the truth. Shame on you.

Respectfully, Supposn

When you posted “Two years ago, less than 0.7% of hourly workers made minimum wage”, you were aware that the statement was not relevant to the percentage of USA lower-wage rate workers,

What's the definition of "lower-wage rate workers"? What is the percentage?

 

[Supposn]

... Let's look at some real numbers.

View attachment 273615

Table 5. Quartiles and selected deciles of usual weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by selected characteristics, second quarter 2019 averages, not seasonally adjusted

So, the bottom 10% of full-time workers make less than $11.35/hour.
The bottom 25% make less than $15.27/hour. ...

do you have a link to your post's attached image? The data apparently confirms my suppositions; the federal minimum rate has no less than a critical effect upon the 20th percentile of USA employees wages, and substantial effect upon the remainder of the 40th percentile of USA's employees.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... Let's look at some real numbers.

View attachment 273615

Table 5. Quartiles and selected deciles of usual weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by selected characteristics, second quarter 2019 averages, not seasonally adjusted

So, the bottom 10% of full-time workers make less than $11.35/hour.
The bottom 25% make less than $15.27/hour. ...

do you have a link to your post's attached image? The data apparently confirms my suppositions; the federal minimum rate has no less than a critical effect upon the 20th percentile of USA employees wages, and substantial effect upon the remainder of the 40th percentile of USA's employees.

Respectfully, Supposn

do you have a link to your post's attached image?

The image is a portion of the table linked just below the image.

The data apparently confirms my suppositions; the federal minimum rate has no less than a critical effect upon the 20th percentile of USA employees wages,

What are you talking about?

Less than 1% make minimum wage, the bottom 10% make between $7.25 and $11.35.

 

[Supposn]

When you posted “Two years ago, less than 0.7% of hourly workers made minimum wage”, you were aware that the statement was not relevant to the percentage of USA lower-wage rate workers,

What's the definition of "lower-wage rate workers"? What is the percentage?

Toddsterpatriot, I've been asking those same questions and we participants in this thread might find some answers.

Toobfreak's post # 18 led me to, Who makes less than $15 per hour, in 3 charts ,
which led me to the NELP chart published by Fortune Magazine, of “largest occupations with median wages less than $15 per hour”.
That's the National Employment Law Project you hold in contempt. I don't know if your contempt is or is not justified. I've E-mailed them some questions and I'll visit their office if that's needed for me to understand the answers. Refer to:
https://content.fortune.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/largest-occupations-with-sub-15.png

But I'm supposing most of the 23,649,400 workers within those 10 groups of occupations that were reported to have median wages of $15 or less, would be considered as low wage rate employees.
I suppose those 10 occupational groups do not account for all USA's occupations with median wage rates of $15 or less, and the report doesn't include other occupations that have workers earning less than $15/Hr.

NELP states those statistics were mined out of May 2014 OES, ( U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistic's Occupational Employment Statistics program. I would consider those earning $15/Hr. or less as lower wage rate employees. But I suppose the difference between lower and middle-wage rates is somewhat higher than $15/per hr. You wouldn't consider an employee earning $32,000 per year as middle income?

To put that into proportion, referring to,
U.S.: Number of full-time workers 1990-2018 | Statista
there were 116.31 million full-time employees in 2014.
So NELP claims to be reporting in regard to most of 23.49/116.310 = 0.20196 > or a large portion of USA's 20th percentile of full-time employees in 2014.

It ain't the whole answer, but it ain't a bad start. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

do you have a link to your post's attached image?

The image is a portion of the table linked just below the image.

The data apparently confirms my suppositions; the federal minimum rate has no less than a critical effect upon the 20th percentile of USA employees wages,

What are you talking about?
Less than 1% make minimum wage, the bottom 10% make between $7.25 and $11.35.

Toddsterpatriot, a link to the organization that created the table that's the source of the image. It would be reassuring to confirm that organization's credible and possibly authoritative?

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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When you posted “Two years ago, less than 0.7% of hourly workers made minimum wage”, you were aware that the statement was not relevant to the percentage of USA lower-wage rate workers,

What's the definition of "lower-wage rate workers"? What is the percentage?

Toddsterpatriot, I've been asking those same questions and we participants in this thread might find some answers.

Toobfreak's post # 18 led me to, Who makes less than $15 per hour, in 3 charts ,
which led me to the NELP chart published by Fortune Magazine, of “largest occupations with median wages less than $15 per hour”.
That's the National Employment Law Project you hold in contempt. I don't know if your contempt is or is not justified. I've E-mailed them some questions and I'll visit their office if that's needed for me to understand the answers. Refer to:
https://content.fortune.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/largest-occupations-with-sub-15.png

But I'm supposing most of the 23,649,400 workers within those 10 groups of occupations that were reported to have median wages of $15 or less, would be considered as low wage rate employees.
I suppose those 10 occupational groups do not account for all USA's occupations with median wage rates of $15 or less, and the report doesn't include other occupations that have workers earning less than $15/Hr.

NELP states those statistics were mined out of May 2014 OES, ( U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistic's Occupational Employment Statistics program. I would consider those earning $15/Hr. or less as lower wage rate employees. But I suppose the difference between lower and middle-wage rates is somewhat higher than $15/per hr. You wouldn't consider an employee earning $32,000 per year as middle income?

To put that into proportion, referring to,
U.S.: Number of full-time workers 1990-2018 | Statista
there were 116.31 million full-time employees in 2014.
So NELP claims to be reporting in regard to most of 23.49/116.310 = 0.20196 > or a large portion of USA's 20th percentile of full-time employees in 2014.

It ain't the whole answer, but it ain't a bad start. Respectfully, Supposn

That's the National Employment Law Project you hold in contempt. I don't know if your contempt is or is not justified.

Based on the apparent conflict between their numbers and the ones I posted, probably justified.

But I'm supposing most of the 23,649,400 workers within those 10 groups of occupations that were reported to have median wages of $15 or less, would be considered as low wage rate employees.

So, anyone below $15 is low wage by your definition?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

do you have a link to your post's attached image?

The image is a portion of the table linked just below the image.

The data apparently confirms my suppositions; the federal minimum rate has no less than a critical effect upon the 20th percentile of USA employees wages,

What are you talking about?
Less than 1% make minimum wage, the bottom 10% make between $7.25 and $11.35.

Toddsterpatriot, a link to the organization that created the table that's the source of the image. It would be reassuring to confirm that organization's credible and possibly authoritative?

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

Toddsterpatriot, a link to the organization that created the table that's the source of the image.

I took the picture of the table.
I linked the table.
Do you not know how to click on my link?

It would be reassuring to confirm that organization's credible and possibly authoritative?

It's the BLS. Are you familiar with them? Are they authoritative enough?

The numbers or percentages of employees that earn exactly $7.25/Hr. Is irrelevant.

It was perfectly relevant in response to toobfreak's statement.

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]

When you posted “Two years ago, less than 0.7% of hourly workers made minimum wage”, you were aware that the statement was not relevant to the percentage of USA lower-wage rate workers,

What's the definition of "lower-wage rate workers"? What is the percentage?

Toddsterpatriot, I've been asking those same questions and we participants in this thread might find some answers.

Toobfreak's post # 18 led me to, Who makes less than $15 per hour, in 3 charts ,
which led me to the NELP chart published by Fortune Magazine, of “largest occupations with median wages less than $15 per hour”.
That's the National Employment Law Project you hold in contempt. I don't know if your contempt is or is not justified. I've E-mailed them some questions and I'll visit their office if that's needed for me to understand the answers. Refer to:
https://content.fortune.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/largest-occupations-with-sub-15.png

But I'm supposing most of the 23,649,400 workers within those 10 groups of occupations that were reported to have median wages of $15 or less, would be considered as low wage rate employees.
I suppose those 10 occupational groups do not account for all USA's occupations with median wage rates of $15 or less, and the report doesn't include other occupations that have workers earning less than $15/Hr.

NELP states those statistics were mined out of May 2014 OES, ( U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistic's Occupational Employment Statistics program. I would consider those earning $15/Hr. or less as lower wage rate employees. But I suppose the difference between lower and middle-wage rates is somewhat higher than $15/per hr. You wouldn't consider an employee earning $32,000 per year as middle income?

To put that into proportion, referring to,
U.S.: Number of full-time workers 1990-2018 | Statista
there were 116.31 million full-time employees in 2014.
So NELP claims to be reporting in regard to most of 23.49/116.310 = 0.20196 > or a large portion of USA's 20th percentile of full-time employees in 2014.

It ain't the whole answer, but it ain't a bad start. Respectfully, Supposn

But I'm supposing most of the 23,649,400 workers within those 10 groups of occupations that were reported to have median wages of $15 or less, would be considered as low wage rate employees.

I wonder if you see the flaw in using median in this context?

 

[Supposn]

But I'm supposing most of the 23,649,400 workers within those 10 groups of occupations that were reported to have median wages of $15 or less, would be considered as low wage rate employees.

I wonder if you see the flaw in using median in this context?

Toddsterpatriot, I used the statistics that I had, rather than what I wished I had. I recognized that due to the term "median" all of those reported employ occupations were not entirely at or below $15/Hr. and their average rates must have exceeded $15/Hr. That's why, as you correctly quoted me, the word "most" was included within that sentence.

I've made no claims. I have arrived at suppositions that have thus far been supported by statistics that I have found or been led to find. I have asked for and have received some links from this discussion thread's participants. Those statistics do not “prove”, but they thus far support my suppositions.

You doubt my suppositions but do not cite any logical reason to refute them.

For example, I do not have the 2014 Bureau of Labor Statistics subtotals upon which their National Employment Law Project report of 2014 was based. I did find some of their 2016 statistics. Those figures seem comparable to what they reported for 2014.

In 2016, BLS reported upon 4,448,120 full-time retail salespersons group's average rate of $13.61/Hr; median rate of $11.63/Hr; ¾ of them, 3,336,090 of them earned no more than $14.59/Hr.

My statement regarding 2014, "I'm supposing most of the 23,649,400 workers within those 10 groups of occupations that were reported to have median wages of $15 or less, would be considered as low wage rate employees", is not an unreasonable supposition.

Refer to Retail Salespersons

 

[Supposn]

[]

Toddsterpatriot, a link to the organization that created the table that's the source of the image.

I took the picture of the table.
I linked the table.
Do you not know how to click on my link?

It would be reassuring to confirm that organization's credible and possibly authoritative?

It's the BLS. Are you familiar with them? Are they authoritative enough?

I want a link to the actual BLS site that provides the table. When that link's passed on to others, it indicates the table's source is actually the BLS.

 

[Supposn]

"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

The numbers or percentages of employees that earn exactly $7.25/Hr. Is irrelevant.

It was perfectly relevant in response to toobfreak's statement.

Then discuss that with Toobfreak.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But I'm supposing most of the 23,649,400 workers within those 10 groups of occupations that were reported to have median wages of $15 or less, would be considered as low wage rate employees.

I wonder if you see the flaw in using median in this context?

Toddsterpatriot, I used the statistics that I had, rather than what I wished I had. I recognized that due to the term "median" all of those reported employ occupations were not entirely at or below $15/Hr. and their average rates must have exceeded $15/Hr. That's why, as you correctly quoted me, the word "most" was included within that sentence.

I've made no claims. I have arrived at suppositions that have thus far been supported by statistics that I have found or been led to find. I have asked for and have received some links from this discussion thread's participants. Those statistics do not “prove”, but they thus far support my suppositions.

You doubt my suppositions but do not cite any logical reason to refute them.

For example, I do not have the 2014 Bureau of Labor Statistics subtotals upon which their National Employment Law Project report of 2014 was based. I did find some of their 2016 statistics. Those figures seem comparable to what they reported for 2014.

In 2016, BLS reported upon 4,448,120 full-time retail salespersons group's average rate of $13.61/Hr; median rate of $11.63/Hr; ¾ of them, 3,336,090 of them earned no more than $14.59/Hr.

My statement regarding 2014, "I'm supposing most of the 23,649,400 workers within those 10 groups of occupations that were reported to have median wages of $15 or less, would be considered as low wage rate employees", is not an unreasonable supposition.

Refer to Retail Salespersons

I've made no claims.

You make lots of claims. You provide no backup.

You doubt my suppositions but do not cite any logical reason to refute them.

With no proof, I have no logical reason to believe your claims.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[]

Toddsterpatriot, a link to the organization that created the table that's the source of the image.

I took the picture of the table.
I linked the table.
Do you not know how to click on my link?

It would be reassuring to confirm that organization's credible and possibly authoritative?

It's the BLS. Are you familiar with them? Are they authoritative enough?

I want a link to the actual BLS site that provides the table. When that link's passed on to others, it indicates the table's source is actually the BLS.

The link is to the BLS table. On the BLS . gov site. Click it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"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

The numbers or percentages of employees that earn exactly $7.25/Hr. Is irrelevant.

It was perfectly relevant in response to toobfreak's statement.

Then discuss that with Toobfreak.

I did, so butt out.

 

[Supposn]

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?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

 

[percysunshine]

Why do people put steel loops through their noses?

It is a fashion statement.

 

[Supposn]

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.

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

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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

Respectfully, Supposn

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.

Given up on your claims already?