$15 minimum wage would destroy 1.4 Million jobs

[hadit]

Total real family income would decrease by $9 billion...moron.

Not sure how they reached that conclusion when they reached this conclusion in that same study.

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,

64-20=44 billion in additional economic activity. Even if we subtract 9 billion in total family income that still leaves a gain of 35 billion in economic activity.

And, they did not suggest any tax breaks that could mitigate that cost.

And, with better coverage for unemployment compensation, there would still be a multiplier of 2 for those who are unemployed.

Where's your calculation for the opportunity cost you've imposed with all the new taxes required to fund the massive new welfare program you've created?

 

[hadit]

It won't because the people with the talent are already making more than minimum wage.

All that will happen is a business will pay twice as much for the same unskilled labor

Now You are being overly two dimensional. A lower minimum wage may simply not be cost effective for some to bother working.

People who can't be bothered to work are not the type of people that have job skills

They could be going to school or learning new skills.

Then they wouldn't be applying for minimum wage jobs.,

Really who goes to school so they can get a minimum wage job?

No one that's who.

And that's the kicker. He somehow thinks that most people will spend the money and do the work in school in order to take a MW job that will take months if not years to pay off in higher wages when they can collect the same amount (plus existing benefits, he doesn't say they will be replaced, just added to) through welfare and have to do nothing. Some, with pride and drive, would. MANY would not.

 

[hadit]

And you can't figure out why?

Technology improved by leaps and bounds in that time frame.

We replaced highly skilled labor with automated processes that a low skilled worker can oversee.

That is why the minimum wage should have been keeping up with productivity; for comparison and contrast, CEOs don't produce any more than they did before.

Yes they do they invested in the technology to make their workers more productive

And more productive means fewer jobs because more is produced with the same number of workers.

 

[hadit]

Then they wouldn't be applying for minimum wage jobs.,

Really who goes to school so they can get a minimum wage job?

No one that's who.

Because they know the difference and may even value it. A higher wage could make more economic sense for some.

Human nature being what it is, MANY would choose the option to stay idle then complain that getting $29/hr (The new $15/hr MW plus the $14/hr in other benefits that you refuse to change) just isn't enough.

 

[hadit]

The anti-competitive aspect of minimum wage laws is conveniently ignored. They prevent poor people from competing for jobs with what is often the only advantage they possess - the willingness and ability to work for less. This is by design.

And they FINALLY state the truth.

They want the poor to compete for LOWER WAGES.

And tell me, speaking for all those opposed to the minimum wage...

Just How Low Will You GO?

$5
$2
How little can you get away with paying a starving person so they can eat?
How about lunch and a place to stay?
That's what they did to the coal miners?
That really is what you want isn't it?
Slave Labor without to problems of being a Slave Owner.

Tell us where those jobs are fuck face?

I will work for $2 bucks an hour if the job is interesting enough, I will undercut the competition and paid my resume

My goodness you are just the stupid one aren't you.
Those jobs don't LEGALLY exist today in this country.
But, if they did, you'd never get $2 an hour.
First, you're not worth $2.
Second, somebody else will work cheaper.
Which was the point of the post moron.
View attachment 457682

You stupid fuck states like alabama have no minimum wage law

Obviously they don't think they need one because the federal one is already high enough for their state.

 

[Dadoalex]

It has do do with your obvious math disability.

So...

Given you obvious math disability your claims are obviously well, just wrong.

A person making , say, $10/hour gets an increase over several years to $15 per hour
What do you think that person does with the extra money?
That's right, he spends it. On groceries, washing machines, cars,...
Republicans with their tax cuts make these same claims then proceed to cut taxes for the 1%.

Increased spending at the bottom increases economic activity which increases hiring and decreases unemployment.
Every tax cut since Bush in 01 has made this claim.
If returning $40 at the endo of the year is supposed to increase economic activity imagine what increasing the paycheck by 50% will do.

Your theory is so flawed. First of all increasing the wage will get employers to hire less people, invest in automation such as many fast food places have already done with more to come, and it will create a domino effect.

When the domino effect does a complete circle, everything else costs more money. The additional wage the MW worker now has won't buy them anymore than they have today. Food will go up, dining will be a little more expensive, rent will likely increase, gasoline will have to go up. Everything increases.

The only two things that is really accomplished is that government gets more money via payroll taxes, and it will cause inflation. All you have to do is look what's happening between blue and red states. You do better in life making $15.00 an hour in a red state than you do $20.00 an hour in a blue state. The costs of living are different.

And you show a complete ignorance of actual economics.

A business operates with the minimum level of staffing required to run the business.
Cutting employees cuts the business' ability to function.
Increasing pay increases the competence of employees as less competent employees are replaced by better employees interested in the better wage.
This increases the business' performance.
Increasing the wages at the lower level increases economic activity, the basis of every tax cut Republicans have ever supported.
By increasing that economic activity at the lowest level we increase hiring at that level which reduces unemployment
Which, in turn, reduces government spending
The business owner may, in the short term, experience lower profits but, over the longer term, their businesses will grow because of increased demand.

This really is just basic economics and, unlike Truman, you don't need two hands to figure it out.

When someone who is doing a 7.25 an hour job and that person artificially get a raise to 15 an hour his skills haven't improved so in reality there is no better employee to take his job because all entry level people will have their pay artificially raised for no reason.

And you don't know shit about running a business.

You can't run with the bare minimum because you have to cover sick time, vacation time etc and ideally you don't want to incur overtimes costs when you do that so a business actually runs with a small surplus of labor.

and saying that a guy who does nothing but push a broom has to be paid 15 an hour is not going to result in more broom pushing jobs it fact just the opposite will be true.

No one, unless they change jobs is getting a raise from 7.25 to 15 an hour.
The increase according to those with the power to enact will occur over several year.
YOU are making the same argument made in 2006 and you know what happened?
11 straight years of record economic growth.

So, obviously you're lying and trying to distract from the ACTUAL proposals and the HISTORIC FACT that minimum wage increases over the last 25 years have consistently resulted in economic expansion well beyond what was present before the increases.

LOL...... There is not a single example where increasing the minimum wage did not result in job loss. Not one.

Economic expansion might in fact happen, while still leaving thousands or millions to be unemployed.

California is a perfect example. Seattle is another example. Rich get richer, and the poor end up homeless.

US 2006-2009 Promoted the longest economic expansion in US history.

Your knowledge of the subject in nonexistent.

 

[Dadoalex]

The anti-competitive aspect of minimum wage laws is conveniently ignored. They prevent poor people from competing for jobs with what is often the only advantage they possess - the willingness and ability to work for less. This is by design.

And they FINALLY state the truth.

They want the poor to compete for LOWER WAGES.

And tell me, speaking for all those opposed to the minimum wage...

Just How Low Will You GO?

$5
$2
How little can you get away with paying a starving person so they can eat?
How about lunch and a place to stay?
That's what they did to the coal miners?
That really is what you want isn't it?
Slave Labor without to problems of being a Slave Owner.

You twisted fuck. You want them to go without job instead? If they can't make as much as you think is "minimal" - fuck 'em. They can't work.


It's none of your FUCKING business how much someone else make. Piss off.

And another dumbass who apparently can't read 8th grade English.
That's right, moron, I do keep it simple for the idiots but, obviously in your case. Maybe we should start here for you?

View attachment 457683

The point for you and the rest of the idiots is that given the choice the EMPLOYERS will not pay at all.

.

I really can't imagine why someone would work for nothing, but if they do - why is it any of your business?

Go ask slaves.
Go ask miners in company towns.

Because they end up using public resources is why it's my business.

 

[Dadoalex]

YOU are making the same argument made in 2006 and you know what happened?
11 straight years of record economic growth.

LOL!

You're funny.....and stupid.

And your ignorance of actual history as opposed to the fantasy you create is stupid, but not funny.

 

[Dadoalex]

It has do do with your obvious math disability.

So...

Given you obvious math disability your claims are obviously well, just wrong.

A person making , say, $10/hour gets an increase over several years to $15 per hour
What do you think that person does with the extra money?
That's right, he spends it. On groceries, washing machines, cars,...
Republicans with their tax cuts make these same claims then proceed to cut taxes for the 1%.

Increased spending at the bottom increases economic activity which increases hiring and decreases unemployment.
Every tax cut since Bush in 01 has made this claim.
If returning $40 at the endo of the year is supposed to increase economic activity imagine what increasing the paycheck by 50% will do.

Your theory is so flawed. First of all increasing the wage will get employers to hire less people, invest in automation such as many fast food places have already done with more to come, and it will create a domino effect.

When the domino effect does a complete circle, everything else costs more money. The additional wage the MW worker now has won't buy them anymore than they have today. Food will go up, dining will be a little more expensive, rent will likely increase, gasoline will have to go up. Everything increases.

The only two things that is really accomplished is that government gets more money via payroll taxes, and it will cause inflation. All you have to do is look what's happening between blue and red states. You do better in life making $15.00 an hour in a red state than you do $20.00 an hour in a blue state. The costs of living are different.

And you show a complete ignorance of actual economics.

A business operates with the minimum level of staffing required to run the business.
Cutting employees cuts the business' ability to function.
Increasing pay increases the competence of employees as less competent employees are replaced by better employees interested in the better wage.
This increases the business' performance.
Increasing the wages at the lower level increases economic activity, the basis of every tax cut Republicans have ever supported.
By increasing that economic activity at the lowest level we increase hiring at that level which reduces unemployment
Which, in turn, reduces government spending
The business owner may, in the short term, experience lower profits but, over the longer term, their businesses will grow because of increased demand.

This really is just basic economics and, unlike Truman, you don't need two hands to figure it out.

When someone who is doing a 7.25 an hour job and that person artificially get a raise to 15 an hour his skills haven't improved so in reality there is no better employee to take his job because all entry level people will have their pay artificially raised for no reason.

And you don't know shit about running a business.

You can't run with the bare minimum because you have to cover sick time, vacation time etc and ideally you don't want to incur overtimes costs when you do that so a business actually runs with a small surplus of labor.

and saying that a guy who does nothing but push a broom has to be paid 15 an hour is not going to result in more broom pushing jobs it fact just the opposite will be true.

No one, unless they change jobs is getting a raise from 7.25 to 15 an hour.
The increase according to those with the power to enact will occur over several year.
YOU are making the same argument made in 2006 and you know what happened?
11 straight years of record economic growth.

So, obviously you're lying and trying to distract from the ACTUAL proposals and the HISTORIC FACT that minimum wage increases over the last 25 years have consistently resulted in economic expansion well beyond what was present before the increases.

there has never been an instance where the MW was raised as much or as quickly.

so you are assumiong facts not in evidence and the CBO disagrees with you as their forecast is 1.4 million jobs lost

And there won't be an instance this time. As for facts in evidence...

AS they say in the markets...
Past performance is not an indicator of future performance,
It is the ONLY indicator of future performance
And only the stupid ignore it.

 

[Dadoalex]

The anti-competitive aspect of minimum wage laws is conveniently ignored. They prevent poor people from competing for jobs with what is often the only advantage they possess - the willingness and ability to work for less. This is by design.

And they FINALLY state the truth.

They want the poor to compete for LOWER WAGES.

And tell me, speaking for all those opposed to the minimum wage...

Just How Low Will You GO?

$5
$2
How little can you get away with paying a starving person so they can eat?
How about lunch and a place to stay?
That's what they did to the coal miners?
That really is what you want isn't it?
Slave Labor without to problems of being a Slave Owner.

Tell us where those jobs are fuck face?

I will work for $2 bucks an hour if the job is interesting enough, I will undercut the competition and paid my resume

My goodness you are just the stupid one aren't you.
Those jobs don't LEGALLY exist today in this country.
But, if they did, you'd never get $2 an hour.
First, you're not worth $2.
Second, somebody else will work cheaper.
Which was the point of the post moron.
View attachment 457682

You stupid fuck states like alabama have no minimum wage law

Geez.
Yes they do, fool. It's called the Federal Minimum Wage.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

YOU are making the same argument made in 2006 and you know what happened?
11 straight years of record economic growth.

LOL!

You're funny.....and stupid.

And your ignorance of actual history as opposed to the fantasy you create is stupid, but not funny.

There were "11 straight years of record economic growth" between 2006 and 2017?

Tell me again about ignorance of actual history

 

[dblack]

The anti-competitive aspect of minimum wage laws is conveniently ignored. They prevent poor people from competing for jobs with what is often the only advantage they possess - the willingness and ability to work for less. This is by design.

And they FINALLY state the truth.

They want the poor to compete for LOWER WAGES.

And tell me, speaking for all those opposed to the minimum wage...

Just How Low Will You GO?

$5
$2
How little can you get away with paying a starving person so they can eat?
How about lunch and a place to stay?
That's what they did to the coal miners?
That really is what you want isn't it?
Slave Labor without to problems of being a Slave Owner.

You twisted fuck. You want them to go without job instead? If they can't make as much as you think is "minimal" - fuck 'em. They can't work.


It's none of your FUCKING business how much someone else make. Piss off.

And another dumbass who apparently can't read 8th grade English.
That's right, moron, I do keep it simple for the idiots but, obviously in your case. Maybe we should start here for you?

View attachment 457683

The point for you and the rest of the idiots is that given the choice the EMPLOYERS will not pay at all.

.

I really can't imagine why someone would work for nothing, but if they do - why is it any of your business?

Go ask slaves.
Go ask miners in company towns.

We got rid of both of those. Anything else?

Because they end up using public resources is why it's my business.

Then let's stop them from using public resources. Don't use it as an excuse to push your preferences on others.

 

[jbander]

Wage is based on skill.

When a machine is responsible for the increase in productivity the gut who does nothing but turn the machine on and off isn't responsible for the increase in production the people who built the machine and wrote the computer code are and they get paid more.

Not true for CEO's. Why should it be true for more productive labor?

I already told you the labor isn't more productive it is actually less productive because the technology is responsible for the increase in production not the guy who turns on the machine. The people who actually make the machines , program them and keep them running are the ones getting the better pay.

And like I said what a CEO makes has no impact on what you make. Do you actually think if the government forced all CEOs to take a pay cut that your pay would increase?

Working the machine is what promotes higher productivity. CEOs don't work any harder.

no it's the machine itself.

One guy can monitor 3 or 4 machines because it's the machines that do all the work.

And once again what a CEO gets paid is completely irrelevant and has no impact on what people get paid.

Ceo impact what people get paid , are you that ignorant on what makes up the bottom line of a company. You puppets are such marks

 

[Blues Man]

Most people do not work for companies with high paid CEOs so it really doesn''t matter what they get paid.

What Jeff Bezos makes has never had any effect on my income

Not true at all. Gravity Payments' CEO proved the concept and the starting wage there is around thirty-five dollars an hour.

And how did that affect your income?

Oh yeah it didn't.

I don't work at any of these firms:

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%).

And most people don't work for giant corporations with high paid CEOs.

So stop whining about it

Not the point; the people who do work at those firms haven't seen similar gains to their income or stock options.

how do you know they even own stock in the company they work for?>

That is where they made most of their gains. Employees should be compensated with stock and options as well.

your opinion and besides most big companies have a 401k and match employees contributions so they can buy stock from their company with the matching funds

 

[Blues Man]

Then they wouldn't be applying for minimum wage jobs.,

Really who goes to school so they can get a minimum wage job?

No one that's who.

Because they know the difference and may even value it. A higher wage could make more economic sense for some.

No one no one no one goes to college so they can get a minimum wage job.

By definition MW jobs are entry level positions that require little or no skill.

In fact you can and should look at a MW job as paid training for your next better paying job.

 

[Blues Man]

It has do do with your obvious math disability.

So...

Given you obvious math disability your claims are obviously well, just wrong.

A person making , say, $10/hour gets an increase over several years to $15 per hour
What do you think that person does with the extra money?
That's right, he spends it. On groceries, washing machines, cars,...
Republicans with their tax cuts make these same claims then proceed to cut taxes for the 1%.

Increased spending at the bottom increases economic activity which increases hiring and decreases unemployment.
Every tax cut since Bush in 01 has made this claim.
If returning $40 at the endo of the year is supposed to increase economic activity imagine what increasing the paycheck by 50% will do.

Your theory is so flawed. First of all increasing the wage will get employers to hire less people, invest in automation such as many fast food places have already done with more to come, and it will create a domino effect.

When the domino effect does a complete circle, everything else costs more money. The additional wage the MW worker now has won't buy them anymore than they have today. Food will go up, dining will be a little more expensive, rent will likely increase, gasoline will have to go up. Everything increases.

The only two things that is really accomplished is that government gets more money via payroll taxes, and it will cause inflation. All you have to do is look what's happening between blue and red states. You do better in life making $15.00 an hour in a red state than you do $20.00 an hour in a blue state. The costs of living are different.

And you show a complete ignorance of actual economics.

A business operates with the minimum level of staffing required to run the business.
Cutting employees cuts the business' ability to function.
Increasing pay increases the competence of employees as less competent employees are replaced by better employees interested in the better wage.
This increases the business' performance.
Increasing the wages at the lower level increases economic activity, the basis of every tax cut Republicans have ever supported.
By increasing that economic activity at the lowest level we increase hiring at that level which reduces unemployment
Which, in turn, reduces government spending
The business owner may, in the short term, experience lower profits but, over the longer term, their businesses will grow because of increased demand.

This really is just basic economics and, unlike Truman, you don't need two hands to figure it out.

When someone who is doing a 7.25 an hour job and that person artificially get a raise to 15 an hour his skills haven't improved so in reality there is no better employee to take his job because all entry level people will have their pay artificially raised for no reason.

And you don't know shit about running a business.

You can't run with the bare minimum because you have to cover sick time, vacation time etc and ideally you don't want to incur overtimes costs when you do that so a business actually runs with a small surplus of labor.

and saying that a guy who does nothing but push a broom has to be paid 15 an hour is not going to result in more broom pushing jobs it fact just the opposite will be true.

No one, unless they change jobs is getting a raise from 7.25 to 15 an hour.
The increase according to those with the power to enact will occur over several year.
YOU are making the same argument made in 2006 and you know what happened?
11 straight years of record economic growth.

So, obviously you're lying and trying to distract from the ACTUAL proposals and the HISTORIC FACT that minimum wage increases over the last 25 years have consistently resulted in economic expansion well beyond what was present before the increases.

there has never been an instance where the MW was raised as much or as quickly.

so you are assumiong facts not in evidence and the CBO disagrees with you as their forecast is 1.4 million jobs lost

And there won't be an instance this time. As for facts in evidence...

AS they say in the markets...
Past performance is not an indicator of future performance,
It is the ONLY indicator of future performance
And only the stupid ignore it.

The CBO disagrees with you.

 

[Blues Man]

Wage is based on skill.

When a machine is responsible for the increase in productivity the gut who does nothing but turn the machine on and off isn't responsible for the increase in production the people who built the machine and wrote the computer code are and they get paid more.

Not true for CEO's. Why should it be true for more productive labor?

I already told you the labor isn't more productive it is actually less productive because the technology is responsible for the increase in production not the guy who turns on the machine. The people who actually make the machines , program them and keep them running are the ones getting the better pay.

And like I said what a CEO makes has no impact on what you make. Do you actually think if the government forced all CEOs to take a pay cut that your pay would increase?

Working the machine is what promotes higher productivity. CEOs don't work any harder.

no it's the machine itself.

One guy can monitor 3 or 4 machines because it's the machines that do all the work.

And once again what a CEO gets paid is completely irrelevant and has no impact on what people get paid.

Ceo impact what people get paid , are you that ignorant on what makes up the bottom line of a company. You puppets are such marks

most people don't work for companies with high paid CEOs

What Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk makes has never had an impact on my income and I bet it has none on yours..

 

[danielpalos]

generates more in tax revenue.

Prove it, liar.

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,

Labor would be creating demand and generating tax revenue based on the higher amount. Even if you subtract the 20 billion lost there would still remain 44 billion in additional economic activity, and the multiplier from those individuals who tend to spend most of their income on more immediate needs. Local small businesses would have the location advantage.

View attachment 458006

No menu price inflation will double even if the minimum wage does. The multiplier will still be picking up the slack simply because, higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue.

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,

64 billion in economic activity means more demand for the private sector and more taxes for government; and, any true Capitalist will insist on making a profit.

 

[danielpalos]

View attachment 458007

Idiot.

Typical right winger.

Maybe in the short run. In the long run, higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue.

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,

 

[Blues Man]

View attachment 458007

Idiot.

Typical right winger.

Maybe in the short run. In the long run, higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue.

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,

you know just because you italicize something and repeat it over and over and over doesn't make it true