$15 minimum wage would destroy 1.4 Million jobs

[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.

Where in history has the MW been raised more than 100%

Since 1933 it's gone from zero to 7.15 per hour so....

 

[danielpalos]

In the short term, .... (insert hand jerking off emoji)

In the long term, the market rebalances and, for those who don't lose their jobs, they're right back where they started.

Not at all. You are missing the point, like usual.

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,

We know markets will rebalance to the new equilibrium where higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue; the multiplier effect. And, those persons earning the higher wage rate will be paying taxes at the thirty thousand per year wage rate versus virtually no taxes generated from minimum wage labor at the fifteen thousand per year wage rate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In the short term, .... (insert hand jerking off emoji)

In the long term, the market rebalances and, for those who don't lose their jobs, they're right back where they started.

Not at all. You are missing the point, like usual.

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,

We know markets will rebalance to the new equilibrium where higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue; the multiplier effect. And, those persons earning the higher wage rate will be paying taxes at the thirty thousand per year wage rate versus virtually no taxes generated from minimum wage labor at the fifteen thousand per year wage rate.

We know markets will rebalance to the new equilibrium where higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue; the multiplier effect.

You're lying. The multiplier effect here is negative.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Where in history has the MW been raised more than 100%

Since 1933 it's gone from zero to 7.15 per hour so....

Again, at what point in history, has the minimum wage increased 100%?

$7.25 to $15, is a more than 100% increase. when has that happened in US history?

The closest thing, was the 2007-2009 increase from $5.25 to $7.25, and maybe you missed it, but those were economically disastrous times.

 

[dblack]

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'll need to be justify those claims with more than italicized font.

We know markets will rebalance to the new equilibrium where higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue; the multiplier effect.

"We" know no such thing. It's sheer fantasy.

 

[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.

No I never worked for any corporation.

So I know that what some corporate CEO gets paid has absolutely nothing to do with what I can earn.

Garbage , their are many

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 simply appeal to ignorance of economics and the multiplier effect.

There is no multiplier.

A dollar is not worth anymore than a dollar.

It's the velocity of money that matters

Garbage there are many different kinds of money multipliers , every economist in this country is laughing at you. One of the basic backbones of capitalism, Actual any economy.

The velocity of money is what matters.

Hello. There is No Magic Money Multiplier

Magic Multiplier Theory Veronique de Rugy discusses When Puff the Magic Multiplier Goes Poof. The belief is that when the government takes a dollar out of your

www.thestreet.com

And you don't seem to understand that the multiplier economists talk about is not due to people arbitrarily getting paid more it has to do with people depositing more money into banks or investments where the bank will loan a percentage of that money out to be used.

Hay you said it didn't exist loser, and it does and every economists that exist talks about it, You can't bullshit your way out of this. You said there was no money multiplier, You admit that you were wrong and I won't make a laughing stock out of your make believe knowledge on this. You can't hide from this its your own words . You don't know what you are talking about,

 

[jbander]

In the short term, .... (insert hand jerking off emoji)

In the long term, the market rebalances and, for those who don't lose their jobs, they're right back where they started.

Not even in the ball park of truth, total bullshit, from clueless.

 

[Blues Man]

There is no multiplier.

A dollar is not worth anymore than a dollar.

It's the velocity of money that matters

Yes, there is a multiplier. An increased velocity of money contributes to the multiplier. More people spending more money contributes to both the velocity of money and the multiplier. Thus, higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue.

Multiplier: What It Means in Finance and Economics

A multiplier refers to an economic input that amplifies the effect of some other variable.

www.investopedia.com

There is no multiplier never has been never will be.

And FYI taxes reduce the velocity of money they don't increase it.

So more tax revenue does nothing for the economy.

That is just you appealing to ignorance of economics. It is why it can be soo difficult to take right wingers seriously.

And, tax generation is being increased by higher paid labor paying more in taxes and creating more in demand (and adding to the velocity of money circulating). The virtual doubling of the minimum wage means all those people that had less to spend before will have more to spend and be taxed on now. People making thirty thousand dollars per year actually pay taxes (approximately $2000 according to Income Tax Calculator 2021 - USA - Salary After Tax ) on that income and individuals no longer qualify for the earned income credit at that higher wage rate (Earned Income Tax Credit Calculator - EIC).

Taxes do not add to the velocity of money.

 

[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.

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

No I never worked for any corporation.

So I know that what some corporate CEO gets paid has absolutely nothing to do with what I can earn.

Garbage , their are many

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 simply appeal to ignorance of economics and the multiplier effect.

There is no multiplier.

A dollar is not worth anymore than a dollar.

It's the velocity of money that matters

Garbage there are many different kinds of money multipliers , every economist in this country is laughing at you. One of the basic backbones of capitalism, Actual any economy.

The velocity of money is what matters.

Hello. There is No Magic Money Multiplier

Magic Multiplier Theory Veronique de Rugy discusses When Puff the Magic Multiplier Goes Poof. The belief is that when the government takes a dollar out of your

www.thestreet.com

And you don't seem to understand that the multiplier economists talk about is not due to people arbitrarily getting paid more it has to do with people depositing more money into banks or investments where the bank will loan a percentage of that money out to be used.

Hay you said it didn't exist loser, and it does and every economists that exist talks about it, You can't bullshit your way out of this. You said there was no money multiplier, You admit that you were wrong and I won't make a laughing stock out of your make believe knowledge on this. You can't hide from this its your own words . You don't know what you are talking about,

You were using it wrong.

There is no multiplier in raising the MW or in government spending.

So as you and the other guy are using the term is wrong.

and I still never said it existed I merely corrected your error on how economists define it

 

[Blues Man]

The velocity of money is what matters.

Hello. There is No Magic Money Multiplier

Magic Multiplier Theory Veronique de Rugy discusses When Puff the Magic Multiplier Goes Poof. The belief is that when the government takes a dollar out of your

www.thestreet.com

And you don't seem to understand that the multiplier economists talk about is not due to people arbitrarily getting paid more it has to do with people depositing more money into banks or investments where the bank will loan a percentage of that money out to be used.

From the article you linked:
...
The belief is that when the government takes a dollar out of your pocket, puts that dollar through the political process and decides where to spend it (based on input from special interest groups), the economy will somehow return more money in growth than the money invested, even after Washington bureaucrats take their cut. It's magic! Sadly, these arguments ignore recent empirical evidence that the costs of increased government spending far outweigh the benefits to the economy....

It describes the crowding out effect rather than the multiplier effect, and it would be true if it was actually, crowding out those dollars that would have been spent by the private sector. The usual case for many firms is to try to reduce their tax burden by finding tax havens instead of actually spending the money on raising wages.

It depends on the policy. In the case of increasing the minimum wage, it is not coming from taxes levied but being paid in the usual and customary manner of the private sector, and then spent by all those individuals now making the higher minimum wage. Higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue, ceteris paribus.

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 have been saying all along that government welfare or unemployment is multiplied. You are wrong just admit it.

 

[Blues Man]

we

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.

No I never worked for any corporation.

So I know that what some corporate CEO gets paid has absolutely nothing to do with what I can earn.

ll ,everything you buy or if you invest in the markets, is effected by what the ceo makes.You seem to have no Idea what you are talking about, just a party line Nothing Idea that you really can't back up.

It's your contention that what a CEO makes impacts your income. It doesn't.

My earning capacity has never been imnpacted by what any CEO gets paid

 

[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.

AND?

History is on my side.

Where in history has the MW been raised more than 100%

Since 1933 it's gone from zero to 7.15 per hour so....

and never once in any of those years was it proposed to be doubled.

 

[hadit]

And when they don't get it, you're okay with not doubling the MW overnight? Now, this is setting aside the other stuff you want.

Why would they not get it? The previous guy in the Oval Office was willing to, hand out tax breaks almost like candy, even during the best of right wing economic times. Are you willing to admit that you prefer to hate on the Poor rather than have them receive any benefit under our form of Capitalism?

Is the previous guy still there? No. And what's with the last part of your screed? That has to be one of the stupidest things I've seen in a long time.

Right wingers could be proclaiming, sure, we have no problem increasing the minimum wage if you give us a tax break to help out with the price shock of that new cost. Capitalism should be wonderful even for minimum wage labor.

You have a fantasy scenario but it's not reality now is it?

 

[danielpalos]

We know markets will rebalance to the new equilibrium where higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue; the multiplier effect.

You're lying. The multiplier effect here is negative.

It can't be negative.

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,

 

[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'll need to be justify those claims with more than italicized font.

We know markets will rebalance to the new equilibrium where higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue; the multiplier effect.

"We" know no such thing. It's sheer fantasy.

Those numbers are from the same CBO report right wingers are using.

All right wingers have is right wing fantasy not any valid arguments.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no multiplier.

A dollar is not worth anymore than a dollar.

It's the velocity of money that matters

Yes, there is a multiplier. An increased velocity of money contributes to the multiplier. More people spending more money contributes to both the velocity of money and the multiplier. Thus, higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue.

Multiplier: What It Means in Finance and Economics

A multiplier refers to an economic input that amplifies the effect of some other variable.

www.investopedia.com

There is no multiplier never has been never will be.

And FYI taxes reduce the velocity of money they don't increase it.

So more tax revenue does nothing for the economy.

That is just you appealing to ignorance of economics. It is why it can be soo difficult to take right wingers seriously.

And, tax generation is being increased by higher paid labor paying more in taxes and creating more in demand (and adding to the velocity of money circulating). The virtual doubling of the minimum wage means all those people that had less to spend before will have more to spend and be taxed on now. People making thirty thousand dollars per year actually pay taxes (approximately $2000 according to Income Tax Calculator 2021 - USA - Salary After Tax ) on that income and individuals no longer qualify for the earned income credit at that higher wage rate (Earned Income Tax Credit Calculator - EIC).

Taxes do not add to the velocity of money.

This is what adds to the velocity of money:

Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion,

It is taxes levied on the increased earnings that will increase tax revenue because higher paid labor generates more Tax revenue and creates more demand.

 

[danielpalos]

You were using it wrong.

There is no multiplier in raising the MW or in government spending.

So as you and the other guy are using the term is wrong.

and I still never said it existed I merely corrected your error on how economists define it

You are confusing the multiplier with crowding.

 

[danielpalos]

The velocity of money is what matters.

Hello. There is No Magic Money Multiplier

Magic Multiplier Theory Veronique de Rugy discusses When Puff the Magic Multiplier Goes Poof. The belief is that when the government takes a dollar out of your

www.thestreet.com

And you don't seem to understand that the multiplier economists talk about is not due to people arbitrarily getting paid more it has to do with people depositing more money into banks or investments where the bank will loan a percentage of that money out to be used.

From the article you linked:
...
The belief is that when the government takes a dollar out of your pocket, puts that dollar through the political process and decides where to spend it (based on input from special interest groups), the economy will somehow return more money in growth than the money invested, even after Washington bureaucrats take their cut. It's magic! Sadly, these arguments ignore recent empirical evidence that the costs of increased government spending far outweigh the benefits to the economy....

It describes the crowding out effect rather than the multiplier effect, and it would be true if it was actually, crowding out those dollars that would have been spent by the private sector. The usual case for many firms is to try to reduce their tax burden by finding tax havens instead of actually spending the money on raising wages.

It depends on the policy. In the case of increasing the minimum wage, it is not coming from taxes levied but being paid in the usual and customary manner of the private sector, and then spent by all those individuals now making the higher minimum wage. Higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue, ceteris paribus.

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 have been saying all along that government welfare or unemployment is multiplied. You are wrong just admit it.

Means tested welfare has a lower multiplier than unmployment compensation. Some articles I have read stated a multiplier of .8 for general welfare spending but a multiplier of 2 for unemployment compensation. A market based metric for public policy decisions under Capitalism?

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.--https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP2010-10.pdf

 

[danielpalos]

And when they don't get it, you're okay with not doubling the MW overnight? Now, this is setting aside the other stuff you want.

Why would they not get it? The previous guy in the Oval Office was willing to, hand out tax breaks almost like candy, even during the best of right wing economic times. Are you willing to admit that you prefer to hate on the Poor rather than have them receive any benefit under our form of Capitalism?

Is the previous guy still there? No. And what's with the last part of your screed? That has to be one of the stupidest things I've seen in a long time.

Right wingers could be proclaiming, sure, we have no problem increasing the minimum wage if you give us a tax break to help out with the price shock of that new cost. Capitalism should be wonderful even for minimum wage labor.

You have a fantasy scenario but it's not reality now is it?

It could be reality unless right wingers simply prefer to, hate on the Poor, instead of promote the general welfare.

 

[hadit]

And when they don't get it, you're okay with not doubling the MW overnight? Now, this is setting aside the other stuff you want.

Why would they not get it? The previous guy in the Oval Office was willing to, hand out tax breaks almost like candy, even during the best of right wing economic times. Are you willing to admit that you prefer to hate on the Poor rather than have them receive any benefit under our form of Capitalism?

Is the previous guy still there? No. And what's with the last part of your screed? That has to be one of the stupidest things I've seen in a long time.

Right wingers could be proclaiming, sure, we have no problem increasing the minimum wage if you give us a tax break to help out with the price shock of that new cost. Capitalism should be wonderful even for minimum wage labor.

You have a fantasy scenario but it's not reality now is it?

It could be reality unless right wingers simply prefer to, hate on the Poor, instead of promote the general welfare.

It doesn't matter because it's not reality. Talking about your fantasies as if they would fix things doesn't matter, because it's not reality. You know very well that the left wing will never allow a tax break for companies to offset doubling the MW because the left wing believes that companies are bottomless buckets of money and they need to punish the evil business owners. You need to complain about the left wing, because they will be preventing your fantasy from becoming reality.

Seriously, let's see you blame the left wing.