$15 minimum wage would destroy 1.4 Million jobs

[Toddsterpatriot]

Their own numbers make it a plausible assumption

Their own numbers show you're lying.

 

[hadit]

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!

So we should abandon the war on poverty because it's not working? Yet you want a massive new welfare program to support people who refuse to work available jobs. How do you rationalize that?

 

[hadit]

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).

You started an entire thread on that subject and got schooled on how you're completely wrong, yet here you are again with the same failed rhetoric.

 

[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.

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

Why do you think material costs go up? Hint, they are produced by companies that face the same pressure that all the other companies face, and that includes labor costs.

 

[hadit]

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.

Ever hear of the EIC? Look it up before you go on again about how much tax revenue MW jobs produce.

 

[hadit]

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.

And you learned exactly nothing in the thread you started on this very subject. Now, to the task at hand, there will be some that go to school, but there will be MANY that will take the $29/hr and do nothing.

 

[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?

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.

Your multiplier of two is bogus. You were shown all this in that thread you started, yet here you are, back at it again.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

There is no multiplier.

When you take that 1 dollar from someone else to give to the guy who is unemployed it is not a net gain.

You need to read up on the broken windows fallacy.

 

[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

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..

anyone who collects dividends from a company losses, everyone who works for them are like every business in capitalism, they are restricted by the bottom line of the business on what they pay the people who work for them. Everyone that buys their products are effected by the price needed to polish the apple to the point that is compatible to the pay of the executives in this country. There has been bonuses higher then the distribution of dividends by the company. You have no idea what you are talking about. You corporate puppets spewing the corporate party line are comical.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

How many people work for that company? And tell me how what Jeff Bezoz gets paid has any effect on the people who work there?

 

[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..

anyone who collects dividends from a company losses, everyone who works for them are like every business in capitalism, they are restricted by the bottom line of the business on what they pay the people who work for them. Everyone that buys their products are effected by the price needed to polish the apple to the point that is compatible to the pay of the executives in this country. There has been bonuses higher then the distribution of dividends by the company. You have no idea what you are talking about. You corporate puppets spewing the corporate party line are comical.

And how has that affected your pay?

Most people do not work for companies with highly paid CEOs. And why do you think that if a CEO got paid less that the employees would be paid more?

Every company will pay pretty close to the market rate for any skilled labor no matter how much a CEO makes.

 

[jbander]

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.

There is no multiplier.

When you take that 1 dollar from someone else to give to the guy who is unemployed it is not a net gain.

You need to read up on the broken windows fallacy.

you have no clue buddy, not the slightest. Tell me what a new dollar does in a rich mans pocket compared to adding a dollar in a poor mans pocket. You right wing haters praise capitalism until it works against keeping the poor poor , then capitalism doesn't work for you.

 

[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

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..

anyone who collects dividends from a company losses, everyone who works for them are like every business in capitalism, they are restricted by the bottom line of the business on what they pay the people who work for them. Everyone that buys their products are effected by the price needed to polish the apple to the point that is compatible to the pay of the executives in this country. There has been bonuses higher then the distribution of dividends by the company. You have no idea what you are talking about. You corporate puppets spewing the corporate party line are comical.

And how has that affected your pay?

Most people do not work for companies with highly paid CEOs. And why do you think that if a CEO got paid less that the employees would be paid more?

Every company will pay pretty close to the market rate for any skilled labor no matter how much a CEO makes.

Stupid, I buy their products I collect their div. You just don't know what you are talking about and your questions to me proves it.

 

[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

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".

And you do?

and where exactly in the CBO report are those numbers?

 

[Blues Man]

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.

There is no multiplier.

When you take that 1 dollar from someone else to give to the guy who is unemployed it is not a net gain.

You need to read up on the broken windows fallacy.

you have no clue buddy, not the slightest. Tell me what a new dollar does in a rich mans pocket compared to adding a dollar in a poor mans pocket. You right wing haters praise capitalism until it works against keeping the poor poor , then capitalism doesn't work for you.

So I see you're another one of the 2 dimensional thinkers that are so prevalent here.

Anyone you disagree with is "right wing" You can't understand the world unless you can cram it all into 2 little pigeonholes.

And FYI I grew up dirt fucking poor so I think I know a little bit more about that than most people.

If anyone over the age of 21 is still only making 7.25 an hour it's their own fucking fault.

 

[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..

anyone who collects dividends from a company losses, everyone who works for them are like every business in capitalism, they are restricted by the bottom line of the business on what they pay the people who work for them. Everyone that buys their products are effected by the price needed to polish the apple to the point that is compatible to the pay of the executives in this country. There has been bonuses higher then the distribution of dividends by the company. You have no idea what you are talking about. You corporate puppets spewing the corporate party line are comical.

And how has that affected your pay?

Most people do not work for companies with highly paid CEOs. And why do you think that if a CEO got paid less that the employees would be paid more?

Every company will pay pretty close to the market rate for any skilled labor no matter how much a CEO makes.

Stupid, I buy their products I collect their div. You just don't know what you are talking about and your questions to me proves it.

and the price of their products has no bearing on what your employer pays you.

My income has never been reduced because some CEO got a pay raise and neither has yours.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

anyone who collects dividends from a company losses,

Jeff Bezos was paid less than $2 million last year.
How did his salary impact the pay of Amazon employees?
Be specific.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tell me what a new dollar does in a rich mans pocket compared to adding a dollar in a poor mans pocket.

Well, a dollar in Elon Musk's pocket started several new high tech businesses.
The poor guy bought another pack of smokes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

In other words, corporations can hire less and invest less due to higher minimum wage.
Now, about your confusion about federal corporate tax revenues.........

 

[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.

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

Not with a multiplier of two.

The CBO disagrees with your feelings.