Why is a federal minimum wage rate needed?

[Grumblenuts]

Welcome to the club. Unfortunately, stupid lemmings abound.

 

[task0778]

To all of those opposed to the minimum wage rate concept, regardless of nations’ methods for governing or their economic policies, all the world’s major nations’ governments’ have government or their quasi-government provisions for something that performs the function of USA’s federal minimum wage rate.

First of all, there are numerous countries that do not have a minimum wage, and for good reason. Tell me about these quasi-govt provisions that act as a de facto minimum wage.

Check this out:

------

I’m among the proponents for the minimum wage rate that question the cognizance, and/or logic, and/or the decency of anyone’s character, who doesn’t believe population’s general welfare should be of governments’ concerns.

Just because someone else has a different opinion than yours about what the federal gov't should do to promote the general welfare is no reason to disparage their cognizance, logic, or decency. That's kind of arrogant, don't you think? To presume you know better than anyone else? And to question someone else's decency? Not cool, bro. Ironically, that is pretty much what the Left thinks about Trump, isn't it? Some people would look at that graph above and think that more people will be unemployed if a minimum wage exists or is raised; I assume you are aware that the CBO recently said that 1.4 million jobs would be lost is the minimum wage went up to $15/hr, you saw that right? I don't think that is a good way to improve the general welfare of the citizenry.

 

[dblack]

I’m among the proponents for the minimum wage rate that question the cognizance, and/or logic, and/or the decency of anyone’s character, who doesn’t believe population’s general welfare should be of governments’ concerns.

And I'm among those who recognize that minimum wage does exactly nothing to promote the general welfare. It's a populist circle jerk. Nothing more.

I also question the intelligence, morality and sanity of anyone promoting such drivel. So, you know, go get fucked.

 

[Supposn]

First of all, there are numerous countries that do not have a minimum wage, and for good reason. Tell me about these quasi-govt provisions that act as a de facto minimum wage. ...
... Just because someone else has a different opinion than yours about what the federal gov't should do to promote the general welfare is no reason to disparage their cognizance, logic, or decency. That's kind of arrogant, don't you think? To presume you know better than anyone else? And to question someone else's decency? Not cool, bro. ...

Task0778, you fully quoted my post, but you apparently didn’t carefully read it or considered it. EVERY major nation in the world without exception, has within their governments’ some “government or their quasi-government provisions for something that performs the function of USA’s federal minimum wage rate”.
We’re not discussing someone else, or some individual and otherwise unspecified people, or many groups of such peoples, but rather the governments of every major nation in the world. Even among the Western European governments with the smallest of economies, they have “government or quasi-government provisions for something that performs the function of USA’s federal minimum wage rate”. To dismiss an economic policy held by the governments of every major nation in the world (which include the government of the United States), as not worthy of serious, careful consideration would seem to be an arrogant position.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

… Some people would look at that graph above and think that more people will be unemployed if a minimum wage exists or is raised; I assume you are aware that the CBO recently said that 1.4 million jobs would be lost is the minimum wage went up to $15/hr, you saw that right? I don't think that is a good way to improve the general welfare of the citizenry.

Task0778, referring to Congressional Budget Office’s, (i.e. CBO’s) publication,
The Effects on Employment and Family Income of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage (cbo.gov):

Page 1, CBO’s projections for the proposed “Raise the Wage Act” as stated within the “Effects of the $15 Option on Employment and Income” paragraphs were “1.3 million workers who would otherwise be employed would be jobless in an average week in 2025”.

But CBO also states “In addition there would be increases for “the wages of 17 million workers whose wages would otherwise be below $15 per hour, CBO estimates. The wages of many of the 10 million workers whose wages would be slightly above the new federal minimum would also increase”.

CBO’s report upon families of incomes projected to increase, they they’re all within the brackets that I suppose would entail USA poorest families that account for more than 30% of all USA families. CBO projects those families’ total incomes would only increase by a range of 5.3% for those families of incomes less than their poverty thresholds, to only 1/6th of percent less poorer families that may have income as high almost as high as triple their family’s poverty thresholds. But net increases of total incomes do not reveal the extent of those totals entailing increases of wage incomes and their replacing non-wage derived incomes such as public assistance incomes. Due to the federal minimum wage rate increases, 1.4 million people in USA poorest families are raised to exceed their families total previous poverty thresholds.

There’s a net decrease of USA’s total incomes for all USA families; that’s a 1/10 of a percent reduction of USA families total incomes, and those reductions in aggregate only occur within USA’s higher income families. I’m among those that consider replacing public assistance incomes with wage incomes, and increasing the purchasing powers of USA’s poorest families, and reducing the incidences and extents of poverty among USA’s working poor as well worth the net loss of 1/10 of a percent of all USA family’s incomes that reduce only incomes of families within the higher income brackets. The CBO reports entail both the employed and unemployed members of USA families. There projections for the Raise the Wage Act describe a proposal net financially beneficial to USA’s poorest workers and their families, and net economically beneficial to our nation.

If you want to seriously discuss CBO’s projections, you should read and consider their entire reports. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

And I'm among those who recognize that minimum wage does exactly nothing to promote the general welfare. It's a populist circle jerk. Nothing more.
I also question the intelligence, morality and sanity of anyone promoting such drivel. So, you know, go get fucked.

DBlack, your mother must derive satisfaction and pride from her son’s eloquent English prose.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

… Some people would look at that graph above and think that more people will be unemployed if a minimum wage exists or is raised; I assume you are aware that the CBO recently said that 1.4 million jobs would be lost is the minimum wage went up to $15/hr, you saw that right? I don't think that is a good way to improve the general welfare of the citizenry.

Task0778, referring to Congressional Budget Office’s, (i.e. CBO’s) publication,
The Effects on Employment and Family Income of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage (cbo.gov):

Page 1, CBO’s projections for the proposed “Raise the Wage Act” as stated within the “Effects of the $15 Option on Employment and Income” paragraphs were “1.3 million workers who would otherwise be employed would be jobless in an average week in 2025”.

But CBO also states “In addition there would be increases for “the wages of 17 million workers whose wages would otherwise be below $15 per hour, CBO estimates. The wages of many of the 10 million workers whose wages would be slightly above the new federal minimum would also increase”.

CBO’s report upon families of incomes projected to increase, they they’re all within the brackets that I suppose would entail USA poorest families that account for more than 30% of all USA families. CBO projects those families’ total incomes would only increase by a range of 5.3% for those families of incomes less than their poverty thresholds, to only 1/6th of percent less poorer families that may have income as high almost as high as triple their family’s poverty thresholds. But net increases of total incomes do not reveal the extent of those totals entailing increases of wage incomes and their replacing non-wage derived incomes such as public assistance incomes. Due to the federal minimum wage rate increases, 1.4 million people in USA poorest families are raised to exceed their families total previous poverty thresholds.

There’s a net decrease of USA’s total incomes for all USA families; that’s a 1/10 of a percent reduction of USA families total incomes, and those reductions in aggregate only occur within USA’s higher income families. I’m among those that consider replacing public assistance incomes with wage incomes, and increasing the purchasing powers of USA’s poorest families, and reducing the incidences and extents of poverty among USA’s working poor as well worth the net loss of 1/10 of a percent of all USA family’s incomes that reduce only incomes of families within the higher income brackets. The CBO reports entail both the employed and unemployed members of USA families. There projections for the Raise the Wage Act describe a proposal net financially beneficial to USA’s poorest workers and their families, and net economically beneficial to our nation.

If you want to seriously discuss CBO’s projections, you should read and consider their entire reports. Respectfully, Supposn

I’m among those that consider replacing public assistance incomes with wage incomes,

How much is public assistance reduced? Link?

 

[Supposn]

How much is public assistance reduced [due to increases of the federal minimum wage rate] ? Link?

Whining ToddsterPatriot, rather than whining, you a asked a very pertinent question.
Gate keepers generally deny most public assistance applicants because their wage incomes exceed the assistance program’s income thresholds. When a low-income families wages substantially increase, those families in most cases lose their previous entitlement for public assistance, although the net increase of those families’ total incomes may be, and often usually are proportionally small.
The federal minimum wage rate more or less directly affects only the purchasing powers of low wage incomes. (Minimum wage rates are victims rather than among the primary causes of U.S. dollars’ inflation rates). The Congressional Budget Office, (i.e. CBO) only reported upon families’ net totals and failed to report upon those families’ net wage incomes or upon USA workers’ wage incomes. We’re left to best surmise approximations these vital statistics.

The CBO did not report upon the proportion of all USA families within each of the poverty threshold brackets. But the U.S. Census bureau did provide us with something regarding USA’s entire population.

Income and Poverty in the United States: 2019 (census.gov)
Table B-3. People with Income Below Specified Ratios of Their Poverty Thresholds by Selected Characteristics: 2019[<1.0 MB]
People with incomes below 1.25 times their poverty threshold are 14.3% of USA’s population.
People with incomes below 1.50 times their poverty threshold are 18.1% of USA’s population.
People with incomes below 2.00 times their poverty threshold are 26.3% of USA’s population.
(the Census Bureau didn’t provide me with any further information in this matter).

Based upon these Census bureau statistics and CBO’s reported increases of lower income families’ projected income increases due to the “Raise the Wage Act”, it’s not unreasonable to assume families of incomes less than triple their poverty threshold constitute substantially more than 30% of our nations’ wage-earning families.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How much is public assistance reduced [due to increases of the federal minimum wage rate] ? Link?

Whining ToddsterPatriot, rather than whining, you a asked a very pertinent question.
Gate keepers generally deny most public assistance applicants because their wage incomes exceed the assistance program’s income thresholds. When a low-income families wages substantially increase, those families in most cases lose their previous entitlement for public assistance, although the net increase of those families’ total incomes may be, and often usually are proportionally small.
The federal minimum wage rate more or less directly affects only the purchasing powers of low wage incomes. (Minimum wage rates are victims rather than among the primary causes of U.S. dollars’ inflation rates). The Congressional Budget Office, (i.e. CBO) only reported upon families’ net totals and failed to report upon those families’ net wage incomes or upon USA workers’ wage incomes. We’re left to best surmise approximations these vital statistics.

The CBO did not report upon the proportion of all USA families within each of the poverty threshold brackets. But the U.S. Census bureau did provide us with something regarding USA’s entire population.

Income and Poverty in the United States: 2019 (census.gov)
Table B-3. People with Income Below Specified Ratios of Their Poverty Thresholds by Selected Characteristics: 2019[<1.0 MB]
People with incomes below 1.25 times their poverty threshold are 14.3% of USA’s population.
People with incomes below 1.50 times their poverty threshold are 18.1% of USA’s population.
People with incomes below 2.00 times their poverty threshold are 26.3% of USA’s population.
(the Census Bureau didn’t provide me with any further information in this matter).

Based upon these Census bureau statistics and CBO’s reported increases of lower income families’ projected income increases due to the “Raise the Wage Act”, it’s not unreasonable to assume families of incomes less than triple their poverty threshold constitute substantially more than 30% of our nations’ wage-earning families.
Respectfully, Supposn

it’s not unreasonable to assume

So you assume the $15 minimum wage would reduce public assistance spending,
but have no backup.......sounds familiar.

The Budgetary Effects of the Raise the Wage Act of 2021 (cbo.gov)

The CBO seems to disagree with your assumption. That also sounds familiar.

 

[danielpalos]

...because Government has to be competing better with the private sector to enable more efficient market based arbitrage in our economy.

Promoting and providing for the general welfare could include an entitlement public policy of upgrading infrastructure on an ongoing basis. We should be creating jobs which have the effect enabling higher paid labor create more in demand and generate more in tax revenue.

In my opinion, the public sector should own the physical layer of infrastructure and recover costs by providing that public accommodation to the private in a market friendly manner.

The federal Government could be subsidizing infrastructure ventures that focus on placing energy infrastructure underground to save green space and to better ensure our republican form of Government can continue to operate.

 

[gulfman]

Minimum wage is needed so a person with a liberal arts degree can find a job

 

[Orangecat]

It isn't needed.

Certainly not by workers who bring value to the table.

 

[danielpalos]

Minimum wage is needed so a person with a liberal arts degree can find a job

So someone pursuing higher education wants to participate in the market for labor under our form of Capitalism. There is no unemployment under Capitalism, only underpayment.