$15 minimum wage would destroy 1.4 Million jobs

[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.

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.

Simpler then that, anyone who supports a party or leader that supported the destruction of this country, the destruction of our democracy to force in a piece of shit dictator, Is a complete traitor to this country and I support the fact that they shoot traitors in this country. You have no voice in my country any more. You are this countries biggest threat and enemy.

 

[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.

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.

You simply are the normal mullet brained Corporate puppet reading word for word off their script.

 

[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.

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.

Simpler then that, anyone who supports a party or leader that supported the destruction of this country, the destruction of our democracy to force in a piece of shit dictator, Is a complete traitor to this country and I support the fact that they shoot traitors in this country. You have no voice in my country any more. You are this countries biggest threat and enemy.

I support the fact that they shoot traitors in this country.

When do they do that?

 

[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.

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.

He won't even acknowledge that there's such a thing as opportunity cost.

 

[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.

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

Tell me again about ignorance of actual history

And your willingness to display your ignorance and downright stupidity surprises no one. Especially your parents. Cousin Dad and Grandma Mom.

 

[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

And your willingness to display your ignorance and downright stupidity surprises no one. Especially your parents. Cousin Dad and Grandma Mom.

You aren't going to tell me about "11 straight years of record economic growth" between 2006 and 2017?

DURR.

 

[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.

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.

BUUUUUUT!!!!!!!

That's part of MAGA!!!!!
Didn't you know that?!?!?!

You want to kill the minimum wage.
You want to take away the social net....

Do you know what we had before the minimum wage and the social net?

That's right, FOOL! WE had slavery, company towns, sharecroppers....

READ YOUR HISTORY instead of getting it from dead radio guys!

 

[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.

The CBO disagrees with you.

AND?

History is on my side.

 

[danielpalos]

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

I am not referring to monopolies but economies of scale.

The size of the business generally matters when it comes to economies of scale. The larger the business, the more the cost savings.--https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economiesofscale.asp

And, equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States will engender an upward pressure on wages.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

View attachment 458245

It's a net $9 billion loser.

I saw it but discounted it since it cannot be a long term effect in the long run since higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue.

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.--https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf

In other words, some disemployment may occur but more people spending more money will have that positive (multiplier) effect on economic activity and our economy.

And, that study did not recommend or study any potential effects of tax breaks to businesses to help them adjust to the new wage rate; and, the study also did not consider the (multiplier) effect on our economy of more comprehensive unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

 

[danielpalos]

Their own numbers make it a plausible assumption

Their own numbers show you're lying.

Their own numbers are projections that omit several mitigating factors.

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.--https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf

It must be one or the other in the long run equilibrium. And, higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue in every long run equilibrium.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

Only right wingers call it a welfare program. I call it equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

Why should we have to care about business disemploying labor for the bottom line, ceteris paribus?

And, why allege right wingers care about Individual Liberty or natural rights (to equal protection of the laws)?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

You needed valid arguments for rebuttal not simply right wingers typing on the Internet and claiming they are Right and must have the "gospel Truth".

 

[danielpalos]

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.

How many firms use minimum wage labor to produce their goods and services?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I saw it but discounted it

Liar.

 

[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.

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

I just ran it; it shows $0 credit on a wage of thirty thousand. It showed a $414 credit on fifteen thousand.

Earned Income Tax Credit Calculator - EIC

Bankrate.com provides a FREE earned income tax credit calculator and other EIC income tax calculators to help consumers determine the amount of income tax due or owed to the IRS.

www.bankrate.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In the short term, an increase in the minimum wage can boost the employment of low-wage workers

And in the longer term..... Over a longer period, however, more firms would replace low-wage workers with higher-wage workers, machines, and other substitutes. Thus, CBO expects that the percentage reduction in employment of low-wage workers would generally rise over time for any given increase in the minimum wage

LOL!

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Only because you had nothing (but fallacy). How did you reach your twenty-nine dollar an hour number?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only right wingers call it a welfare program. I call it equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

Because you're full of shit.

 

[danielpalos]

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

All you had was fallacy not any "gospel Truth" and must be more bogus as a result.

Combining all UI components, we find that, overall, the UI program closed 0.183 of the gap in real GDP caused by the recession. There is reason to believe, however, that for this particular recession, the UI program provided stronger stabilization of real output than in many past recessions because extended benefits responded strongly. Multiplier effects in real GDP were estimated to average 2.0 for regular UI benefits and also 2.0 for extended benefits. (Executive Summary, Page iv)
https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP2010-10.pdf