$15 minimum wage would destroy 1.4 Million jobs

[danielpalos]

And again you try to pretend that a war time economy is the same as a peacetime economy. You didn't go to find out what Lincoln did to the Constitution during the Civil War, did you?

Abolish your worthless, fake news, and alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror since you admit we have a peacetime economy not a real times of war economy. Be brave and go the equivalent to maskless for those non-pandemic issues.

What does that have to do with you trying to equate a war time economy with a peacetime economy? You know you won't get the same results, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Politicians can claim all kinds of wars on all kinds of stuff, but what they're really doing is trying to generate support for spending a lot of money. You know, like the war on poverty was never a real war at all, it was just a marketing slogan to generate support to allow the federal government to spend a lot of money on welfare programs.

Those policies are even more fake than the pandemic. Abolish those restrictive regulations to help grow our economy!

 

[danielpalos]

Do you honestly think the government is going to get much tax revenue out of MW jobs, no matter how high it's set? They are MW jobs, which means no one in Washington is going to allow them to be taxed.

Yes, I do. According to this website:

Income Tax Calculator 2021 - USA - Salary After Tax

The current minimum wage of $7.25, (yearly equivalent $14,848) generates approximately $245 in federal income tax,
and a minimum wage of $15 dollars an hour, (yearly equivalent $30,720) generates approximately $2001 in federal income tax,
more than 8 times more in federal income tax per Individual due to our progressive tax regime for the higher minimum wage than the current minimum wage.

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,

That is just in direct federal income taxation and it doesn't include State and local taxes or general, indirect taxes generated every time money changes hands.

Higher paid labor can create more in demand and generate more in tax revenue in every long run equilibrium.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

No menu price inflation will double even if the minimum wage does.

Who said it would double? Link?

higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue.

You're lying.

See? The CBO says it would reduce output. And employment. And income.

I can understand why you like it.......you're a moron

 

[danielpalos]

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?

With a multiplier of 2 for that policy, any funds used would be an investment in our economy and would generate 2 dollars in economic activity for every 1 dollar spent. Thus, if we use a simple model with existing numbers, the 20 billion lost by those being unemployed could be the input for the cost of unemployment compensation. Spending 20 billion to replace that lost income would generate 40 billion in economic activity which would be effected by the multiplier. Ask any Capitalist if they want to get richer.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you honestly think the government is going to get much tax revenue out of MW jobs, no matter how high it's set? They are MW jobs, which means no one in Washington is going to allow them to be taxed.

Yes, I do. According to this website:

Income Tax Calculator 2021 - USA - Salary After Tax

The current minimum wage of $7.25, (yearly equivalent $14,848) generates approximately $245 in federal income tax,
and a minimum wage of $15 dollars an hour, (yearly equivalent $30,720) generates approximately $2001 in federal income tax,
more than 8 times more in federal income tax per Individual due to our progressive tax regime for the higher minimum wage than the current minimum wage.

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,

That is just in direct federal income taxation and it doesn't include State and local taxes or general, indirect taxes generated every time money changes hands.

Higher paid labor can create more in demand and generate more in tax revenue in every long run equilibrium.

The current minimum wage of $7.25, (yearly equivalent $14,848) generates approximately $245 in federal income tax,
and a minimum wage of $15 dollars an hour, (yearly equivalent $30,720) generates approximately $2001 in federal income tax,

How much is federal corporate tax revenue reduced by the $15,872 reduction in
corporate profit?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

With a multiplier of 2 for that policy, any funds used would be an investment in our economy and would generate 2 dollars in economic activity for every 1 dollar spent. Thus, if we use a simple model with existing numbers, the 20 billion lost by those being unemployed could be the input for the cost of unemployment compensation. Spending 20 billion to replace that lost income would generate 40 billion in economic activity which would be effected by the multiplier. Ask any Capitalist if they want to get richer.

With a multiplier of 2 for that policy, any funds used would be an investment in our economy and would generate 2 dollars in economic activity for every 1 dollar spent.

You've reduced investment in our economy.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

They can always learn something that could earn some money. There would be plenty of cost savings to employers since there would be less litigation if an employee can simply quit instead of becoming disgruntled and still collect unemployment compensation.

And, unemployment compensation is simply more cost effective with a multiplier of 2 versus .8 for general welfare spending.

Anyone opting for unemployment compensation over means tested welfare would be a cost savings for tax purposes.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

New technologies are creating new jobs all the time.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

You only complain about the Poor; inflation happens all the time. Why not complain as much about material costs going up?

 

[danielpalos]

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

Only right wingers prefer to try to criminalize poverty (to make their capital numbers look better than they are).

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Less demand for minimum wage jobs by people going to academic or trade schools instead?

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,

It could mean there would be less joblessness (for the working poor) and not reduce earnings as much.

 

[danielpalos]

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..

Gravity Payments disagrees with you.

 

[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,

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

It came from the same CBO report. If one is true why not the other? You need valid arguments since you have no "gospel Truth".

 

[danielpalos]

higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue.

You're lying.

View attachment 458227

See? The CBO says it would reduce output. And employment. And income.

I can understand why you like it.......you're a moron

Their own numbers make it a plausible assumption since even if we subtract 20 billion in income loss it still leaves 44 billion in income gains and that income will be spent at a higher rate since the poor tend to spend most of their income sooner rather than later.

In the short term, an increase in the minimum wage can boost the employment of low-wage workers through changes in the economywide demand for goods and services. A higher minimum wage shifts income from higher-wage consumers and business owners to low-wage workers. Because low-wage workers tend to spend a larger fraction of their earnings, some firms see increased demand for their goods and services, which boosts the employment of low-wage workers and higher-wage workers alike.

 

[Brain357]

We could fix our wage issues by getting rid of all the near monopolies we have.

How would you do that?

Breaking companies up. Been done before. We have lots of wage collusion now.

 

[danielpalos]

Do you honestly think the government is going to get much tax revenue out of MW jobs, no matter how high it's set? They are MW jobs, which means no one in Washington is going to allow them to be taxed.

Yes, I do. According to this website:

Income Tax Calculator 2021 - USA - Salary After Tax

The current minimum wage of $7.25, (yearly equivalent $14,848) generates approximately $245 in federal income tax,
and a minimum wage of $15 dollars an hour, (yearly equivalent $30,720) generates approximately $2001 in federal income tax,
more than 8 times more in federal income tax per Individual due to our progressive tax regime for the higher minimum wage than the current minimum wage.

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,

That is just in direct federal income taxation and it doesn't include State and local taxes or general, indirect taxes generated every time money changes hands.

Higher paid labor can create more in demand and generate more in tax revenue in every long run equilibrium.

The current minimum wage of $7.25, (yearly equivalent $14,848) generates approximately $245 in federal income tax,
and a minimum wage of $15 dollars an hour, (yearly equivalent $30,720) generates approximately $2001 in federal income tax,

How much is federal corporate tax revenue reduced by the $15,872 reduction in
corporate profit?

In other words, corporations can hire more due to less tax?

 

[danielpalos]

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?

With a multiplier of 2 for that policy, any funds used would be an investment in our economy and would generate 2 dollars in economic activity for every 1 dollar spent. Thus, if we use a simple model with existing numbers, the 20 billion lost by those being unemployed could be the input for the cost of unemployment compensation. Spending 20 billion to replace that lost income would generate 40 billion in economic activity which would be effected by the multiplier. Ask any Capitalist if they want to get richer.

With a multiplier of 2 for that policy, any funds used would be an investment in our economy and would generate 2 dollars in economic activity for every 1 dollar spent.

You've reduced investment in our economy.

Not with a multiplier of two. And, the Poor tend to spend a higher proportion of their incomes on goods and services.

 

[danielpalos]

We could fix our wage issues by getting rid of all the near monopolies we have.

How would you do that?

Breaking companies up. Been done before. We have lots of wage collusion now.

Some firms achieve better prices through economies of scale.

Equal protection of the law (which is actually in our several Constitutions) should be more efficient and engender a higher multiplier (of 2) over our current less effective regime, which if right wingers could have their way, would only result in criminalizing poverty (to make their capital numbers look better).

 

[Brain357]

We could fix our wage issues by getting rid of all the near monopolies we have.

How would you do that?

Breaking companies up. Been done before. We have lots of wage collusion now.

Some firms achieve better prices through economies of scale.

Equal protection of the law (which is actually in our several Constitutions) should be more efficient and engender a higher multiplier (of 2) over our current less effective regime, which if right wingers could have their way, would only result in criminalizing poverty (to make their capital numbers look better).

It’s hurting wages. What’s a near monopoly success story for you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Less demand for minimum wage jobs by people going to academic or trade schools instead?

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,

It could mean there would be less joblessness (for the working poor) and not reduce earnings as much.

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 missed a couple.

It's a net $9 billion loser.