Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How many people could we have fed and educated with the $4t spent on Iraq if Bush and Cheney hadn't lied to the entire world?$4t wasted on Iraq over lies.
Also, why exactly does a multi-billion dollar corporation "HAVE" to increase prices for consumers to pay higher wages? If a corporation already profits $1.5b because of paying low wages to reduce expenses, despite Obama's Marxist EPA regulations and unbearably high capital gains taxes, then couldn't the corporation logically pay their employees more and make slightly less than $1.5b? Maybe the corporation and shareholders could settle for profiting "only" $1b so their employees can eat, too?
Excuse me, oh master of idiotic things that have nothing to do with the thread, would not lying about Iraq raise the minimum wage?
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART I:*The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001
Yes I can. Have you ever heard of "the internet"?By the way, can you give me a list of every multimillion dollar corporation that pays minimum wage?
America's 5 biggest low-wage employers- MSN Money
WHY do corporations that profit in the billions HAVE to fire anyone to pay higher wages?
The answer is that most companies probably won't "fire" anyone over being forced by government to pay higher wages, they just won't hire as many people as they would have otherwise. Basic economics; when you raise the price of a good or service the market tends to buy less of it, the magnitude of the reduction in demand is subject to the elasticity variable of the good or service in question.
Congratulations. You've memorized the latest talking point.Increasing minimum wage would kill 500,000 jobs. Or did Obama not get the memo?
CBO report: Minimum wage hike could cost 500,000 jobs
WHY does increasing the minimum wage cost 500k jobs? WHY do corporations that profit in the billions HAVE to fire anyone to pay higher wages?
$4t wasted on Iraq over lies.Did I say that right? I don't want to be accused of racism by saying that Obama wants to fire a bunch of poor people who barely scrape by.
Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects (see the table below). As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBOs assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers
The increased earnings for low-wage workers resulting from the higher minimum wage would total $31 billion, by CBOs estimate. However, those earnings would not go only to low-income families, because many low-wage workers are not members of low-income families. Just 19 percent of the $31 billion would accrue to families with earnings below the poverty threshold, whereas 29 percent would accrue to families earning more than three times the poverty threshold, CBO estimates.
Moreover, the increased earnings for some workers would be accompanied by reductions in real (inflation-adjusted) income for the people who became jobless because of the minimum-wage increase, for business owners, and for consumers facing higher prices.
CBO | The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income
On the plus side, it would also increase the deficit.
Also, why exactly does a multi-billion dollar corporation "HAVE" to increase prices for consumers to pay higher wages? If a corporation already profits $1.5b because of paying low wages to reduce expenses, despite Obama's Marxist EPA regulations and unbearably high capital gains taxes, then couldn't the corporation logically pay their employees more and make slightly less than $1.5b? Maybe the corporation and shareholders could settle for profiting "only" $1b so their employees can eat, too?
Congratulations. You've memorized the latest talking point.Increasing minimum wage would kill 500,000 jobs. Or did Obama not get the memo?
CBO report: Minimum wage hike could cost 500,000 jobs
WHY does increasing the minimum wage cost 500k jobs? WHY do corporations that profit in the billions HAVE to fire anyone to pay higher wages?
WHY do corporations that profit in the billions HAVE to fire anyone to pay higher wages?
The answer is that most companies probably won't "fire" anyone over being forced by government to pay higher wages, they just won't hire as many people as they would have otherwise. Basic economics; when you raise the price of a good or service the market tends to buy less of it, the magnitude of the reduction in demand is subject to the elasticity variable of the good or service in question.
Small businesses will indeed either trim the payroll or the hours per employee
So the CBO is now in the business of creating political talking points?Congratulations. You've memorized the latest talking point.Increasing minimum wage would kill 500,000 jobs. Or did Obama not get the memo?
CBO report: Minimum wage hike could cost 500,000 jobs
WHY does increasing the minimum wage cost 500k jobs? WHY do corporations that profit in the billions HAVE to fire anyone to pay higher wages?
Congratulations. You've memorized the latest talking point.Increasing minimum wage would kill 500,000 jobs. Or did Obama not get the memo?
CBO report: Minimum wage hike could cost 500,000 jobs
WHY does increasing the minimum wage cost 500k jobs? WHY do corporations that profit in the billions HAVE to fire anyone to pay higher wages?
Congratulations. You've memorized the latest talking point.Increasing minimum wage would kill 500,000 jobs. Or did Obama not get the memo?
CBO report: Minimum wage hike could cost 500,000 jobs
WHY does increasing the minimum wage cost 500k jobs? WHY do corporations that profit in the billions HAVE to fire anyone to pay higher wages?
The moral thing to do as a just society is if YOU work 8 hours a day = enough to feed your family, roof over your head and enough to buy a ice cream cone every once in awhile.
The republicans dream of enslaving large portions of our society like China does.
CaféAuLait;8647794 said:Minimum Wage Hike Could Cost 500K Jobs, CBO Reports
According to CBO, increasing the minimum wage would have two chief effects on low-wage workers: First, about 16.5 million workers would receive higher pay that would increase their familys income, and about 900,000 of those families could earn a big enough increase to eclipse the federal poverty threshold.
But CBO also forecasts some negative consequences from the proposed increase. Some jobs for low-wage workers would probably be eliminated, the report finds, and the income of most workers who lose jobs would fall substantially while the share of low-wage workers who were employed would also probably decrease.
CBO projects that if the presidents proposal to increase the minimum wage to $10.10 was fully implemented by the second half of 2016, it would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent.
Minimum Wage Hike Could Cost 500K Jobs, CBO Reports - ABC News
So what happens to those without a job? How do we support those families the CBO labels as poor and those that will not have a job as the low wage jobs will disappear? It's great the move will help 960,000 families, but hurting more than half that and future jobs is not good.
The moral thing to do as a just society is if YOU work 8 hours a day = enough to feed your family, roof over your head and enough to buy a ice cream cone every once in awhile.
The republicans dream of enslaving large portions of our society like China does.
i love this idea that people cant afford 10.10 an hour and will have to cut jobs due to it.
Yeah..Im not really going to buy this bullshit when i watch my own owner get a massive bonus at the end of the year, but take over a month to give out a 50 cent raise.
Uh huh....people can officially blow me.
Yeah, say that to the small businesses that are basically running even right now, and tell me that won't affect them. Small businesses make up about 60-70% of all new jobs in this country. Obviously big companies like McDonalds, Walmart etc can handle it, but small business owners won't be able to handle the additional costs.
The gov't should be setting the way so these companies can grow, not implementing stuff like Min. Wage and Obamacare on companies.
For the second time in as many weeks, the White House on Tuesday found itself racing to contain the political fallout from a potentially damaging report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
In the latest instance, the CBO ran the numbers on President Obama's proposal to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, from $7.25, by 2016. Doing so would boost the income for about 16.5 million workers, the agency says but at a cost of around 500,000 jobs.
Naturally, Republicans seized on the report to bolster their opposition to hiking the minimum wage. "This report confirms what we've long known," said a spokesman for Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). "While helping some, mandating higher wages has real costs, including fewer people working."
The White House swiftly pushed back against the report on a couple of fronts, both arguing that the broader economic benefits of increasing the minimum wage outweigh the potential job losses, and that the job losses probably won't happen anyway.
In a six-point response, Jason Furman and Betsey Stevenson of the Council of Economic Advisers argued that the report showed that raising the minimum wage would "help millions of hard-working families, reduce poverty, and increase the overall wages going to lower-income households." As for the employment picture, they wrote that CBO's estimates "do not reflect the overall consensus view of economists which is that raising the minimum wage has little or no negative effect on employment."
They may be right. There is much disagreement among economists about how raising the minimum wage would impact unemployment, with most finding little to no result. Indeed, the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute recently estimated that a $10.10 minimum wage could actually lead to 85,000 more jobs.
Still, there are some problems with the White House's response.
The administration is engaging in a bit of awkward cherry-picking, touting some numbers in the report while throwing cold water on others. Essentially, it's saying CBO analysts are spot on when they produce favorable results, but terrible at their jobs when they do the opposite. The selective embrace of data is a hallmark of deliberately self-serving arguments.
That gets at a bigger issue. Democrats have long relied on the CBO to bolster their arguments on issues ranging from health care to the economy. The CBO, as a group of nonpartisan number-crunchers, is usually part of the wonky apparatus that lends credence to the Democrats' claim that reality has a liberal bias. And now the White House is saying the CBO is unreliable. So which is it?
Then there are the politics of it. Arguing with the CBO never looks good.
It's the same problem the White House encountered earlier this month when the CBO determined that ObamaCare would shrink the labor supply by 2.5 million full-time workers by 2024. Republicans latched on to that finding as proof that ObamaCare is a job killer, and that narrative initially dominated even mainstream publications. The real story was more nuanced: The CBO found ObamaCare wouldn't reduce the supply of jobs, but rather, through new incentives, allow people to retire earlier and work less, thus reducing the supply of labor.
Still, as with the latest flap, the White House had the harder sell. And regardless of the veracity of its claims, the optics of the administration vociferously pushing back against the CBO doesn't do Democrats many favors. Obama is loath to come out and say, "Losing a small amount of jobs is worth it to help a lot of poor people" but at least that would make more sense to voters.
