Minimum wage rate and labors’ market prices.

[Toddsterpatriot]

ToddsterPatriot, you have yet to provide a link to my post you’re referring to. I cannot guess what in context to that unidentified post, you find problematic? Why you have yet to provide a link to the post you’re referring to. Why or how, (in your opinion), is my unidentified post at fault? Respectfully, Supposn

you have yet to provide a link to the post you’re referring to.
“Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion” while “real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion” is a net increase of the nation’s wages. ...
... Why or how, (in your opinion), is my unidentified post at fault?
At fault? Hardly.
Just an earlier example of an erroneous claim you made about net benefits.

Toddsterpatriot, your post does not answer the questions I asked. You're unable or unwilling to provide a link to the my post you’re referring to? You're unable or unwilling to explain what fault you find within that unidentified post?

Yes, I will stipulate an increase of $64 and a decrease of $20 billion is a net increase. Are you quoting from a particular page of a particular Congressional Budget Office's report? I cannot comment further until you respond more specifically. Respectfully, Supposn

You're unable or unwilling to provide a link to the my post you’re referring to?

Ummm....the link is in post #498, to your post #183.....in this thread.

Are you Joe Biden? Do you have sundowners?

Yes, I will stipulate an increase of $64 and a decrease of $20 billion is a net increase.

Yes, you'll stipulate to your error. Excellent!

Are you quoting from a particular page of a particular Congressional Budget Office's report?

You can't remember your own link from the CBO?
The one that I showed refuted your own claim?

That's funny.

 

[Supposn]

You're unable or unwilling to provide a link to the my post you’re referring to?

Ummm....the link is in post #498, to your post #183.....in this thread.
Are you Joe Biden? Do you have sundowners?
Yes, you'll stipulate to your error. Excellent!
You can't remember your own link from the CBO?
The one that I showed refuted your own claim?
That's funny.

ToddsterPatriot, OK, you’ve pointed to This thread’s post numbers 183 and 498 which I posted on this discussion thread. Can you explain what you consider to be the faults of those posts?
I stipulated to 64 being a number greater than 20. You consider that to be in error? You have a point to make but you’re unable to articulate what you’re thinking?

 

[danielpalos]

The point is, employers can only reduce so much labor

The point is if employers have less money to invest in new equipment (or new locations),
the multiplied loss dwarfs your positive multiplier from (fewer) minimum wage workers
taking home more money.

People merely making more money increases demand, especially at the bottom. And, employers can expense the Cost of Labor.

You're lying.

Argument and link to support your ad hominem or you only have right wing fantasy not any sublime Truth (value) discoverable through argumentation.

 

[danielpalos]

It matters if we have to quibble.

The error in your claim was not a quibble.

Lower income tax receipts is not higher income tax receipts.
You were wrong.

Not from the Poor; the Poor would be paying more in income taxes and creating more in demand. Labor pays income tax while the employer pays corporate taxes..

Not from the Poor; the Poor would be paying more in income taxes

Why limit it to the poor? Is it because you're dishonest or because you're ignorant?

Less overall income taxes collected.

and creating more in demand.

And employers would reduce their demand.

Labor pays income tax while the employer pays corporate taxes..

Yes, the reduction in corporate income taxes paid is larger than the increase in individual income taxes paid

Because we are quibbing. Why limit minimum wage increases for the Poor and not the Rich?

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.--https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/

You are deliberately being ambiguous and disingenuous; are you dishonest or ignorant?

Employers can only reduce their demand for labor by a certain amount or they lose productivity and profit.

The reduction you claim happens with the lower wage rate as well; simply making more money means taxing that more money, regardless of the deductibility by the employer.

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5%

You're lying.

Employers can only reduce their demand for labor by a certain amount

Where did I say their demand for labor was the only reduction?

or they lose productivity and profit.

Paying workers more than they produce is a sure way to reduce profit.

I provided the link. I don't need to lie, I have valid arguments.

The point is, employers can only reduce so much labor and typically less than a nine to one ratio. Federal income tax is nine times more for labor at fifteen an hour than it is for the current minimum wage.

Pay has not kept up with production or the minimum wage would be somewhere around eighteen to twenty-one dollars an hour.

I provided the link. I don't need to lie,

You lied. The link doesn't say "From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5%"

Pay has not kept up with production or the minimum wage would be somewhere around eighteen to twenty-one dollars an hour.

What is the increase in productivity for minimum wage workers? Link?

Why did you copy the link if it was inaccurate? Hoaxster.

The Productivity–Pay Gap

The huge gap between rising incomes at the top and stagnating pay for the rest of us shows that workers are no longer benefiting from their rising productivity. Before 1979, worker pay and productivity grew in tandem. But since 1979, productivity has grown eight times faster than typical worker...

www.epi.org

You lied. Liar.

You are mistaken, like usual. What did I allegedly lie about?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're unable or unwilling to provide a link to the my post you’re referring to?

Ummm....the link is in post #498, to your post #183.....in this thread.
Are you Joe Biden? Do you have sundowners?
Yes, you'll stipulate to your error. Excellent!
You can't remember your own link from the CBO?
The one that I showed refuted your own claim?
That's funny.

ToddsterPatriot, OK, you’ve pointed to This thread’s post numbers 183 and 498 which I posted on this discussion thread. Can you explain what you consider to be the faults of those posts?
I stipulated to 64 being a number greater than 20. You consider that to be in error? You have a point to make but you’re unable to articulate what you’re thinking?

Can you explain what you consider to be the faults of those posts?

You've forgotten your erroneous claim that raising the FMW to $15 was a net economic gain?

Dude.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It matters if we have to quibble.

The error in your claim was not a quibble.

Lower income tax receipts is not higher income tax receipts.
You were wrong.

Not from the Poor; the Poor would be paying more in income taxes and creating more in demand. Labor pays income tax while the employer pays corporate taxes..

Not from the Poor; the Poor would be paying more in income taxes

Why limit it to the poor? Is it because you're dishonest or because you're ignorant?

Less overall income taxes collected.

and creating more in demand.

And employers would reduce their demand.

Labor pays income tax while the employer pays corporate taxes..

Yes, the reduction in corporate income taxes paid is larger than the increase in individual income taxes paid

Because we are quibbing. Why limit minimum wage increases for the Poor and not the Rich?

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.--https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/

You are deliberately being ambiguous and disingenuous; are you dishonest or ignorant?

Employers can only reduce their demand for labor by a certain amount or they lose productivity and profit.

The reduction you claim happens with the lower wage rate as well; simply making more money means taxing that more money, regardless of the deductibility by the employer.

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5%

You're lying.

Employers can only reduce their demand for labor by a certain amount

Where did I say their demand for labor was the only reduction?

or they lose productivity and profit.

Paying workers more than they produce is a sure way to reduce profit.

I provided the link. I don't need to lie, I have valid arguments.

The point is, employers can only reduce so much labor and typically less than a nine to one ratio. Federal income tax is nine times more for labor at fifteen an hour than it is for the current minimum wage.

Pay has not kept up with production or the minimum wage would be somewhere around eighteen to twenty-one dollars an hour.

I provided the link. I don't need to lie,

You lied. The link doesn't say "From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5%"

Pay has not kept up with production or the minimum wage would be somewhere around eighteen to twenty-one dollars an hour.

What is the increase in productivity for minimum wage workers? Link?

Why did you copy the link if it was inaccurate? Hoaxster.

The Productivity–Pay Gap

The huge gap between rising incomes at the top and stagnating pay for the rest of us shows that workers are no longer benefiting from their rising productivity. Before 1979, worker pay and productivity grew in tandem. But since 1979, productivity has grown eight times faster than typical worker...

www.epi.org

You lied. Liar.

You are mistaken, like usual. What did I allegedly lie about?

"From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5%"

 

[danielpalos]

It matters if we have to quibble.

The error in your claim was not a quibble.

Lower income tax receipts is not higher income tax receipts.
You were wrong.

Not from the Poor; the Poor would be paying more in income taxes and creating more in demand. Labor pays income tax while the employer pays corporate taxes..

Not from the Poor; the Poor would be paying more in income taxes

Why limit it to the poor? Is it because you're dishonest or because you're ignorant?

Less overall income taxes collected.

and creating more in demand.

And employers would reduce their demand.

Labor pays income tax while the employer pays corporate taxes..

Yes, the reduction in corporate income taxes paid is larger than the increase in individual income taxes paid

Because we are quibbing. Why limit minimum wage increases for the Poor and not the Rich?

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.--https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/

You are deliberately being ambiguous and disingenuous; are you dishonest or ignorant?

Employers can only reduce their demand for labor by a certain amount or they lose productivity and profit.

The reduction you claim happens with the lower wage rate as well; simply making more money means taxing that more money, regardless of the deductibility by the employer.

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5%

You're lying.

Employers can only reduce their demand for labor by a certain amount

Where did I say their demand for labor was the only reduction?

or they lose productivity and profit.

Paying workers more than they produce is a sure way to reduce profit.

I provided the link. I don't need to lie, I have valid arguments.

The point is, employers can only reduce so much labor and typically less than a nine to one ratio. Federal income tax is nine times more for labor at fifteen an hour than it is for the current minimum wage.

Pay has not kept up with production or the minimum wage would be somewhere around eighteen to twenty-one dollars an hour.

I provided the link. I don't need to lie,

You lied. The link doesn't say "From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5%"

Pay has not kept up with production or the minimum wage would be somewhere around eighteen to twenty-one dollars an hour.

What is the increase in productivity for minimum wage workers? Link?

Why did you copy the link if it was inaccurate? Hoaxster.

The Productivity–Pay Gap

The huge gap between rising incomes at the top and stagnating pay for the rest of us shows that workers are no longer benefiting from their rising productivity. Before 1979, worker pay and productivity grew in tandem. But since 1979, productivity has grown eight times faster than typical worker...

www.epi.org

You lied. Liar.

You are mistaken, like usual. What did I allegedly lie about?

"From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5%"

Your mistake not mine. Did you not understand the concept?

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.

CEO compensation has grown 940% since 1978: Typical worker compensation has risen only 12% during that time

The latest report in EPI’s annual series analyzing current and long-term trends in CEO compensation.

www.epi.org

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It matters if we have to quibble.

The error in your claim was not a quibble.

Lower income tax receipts is not higher income tax receipts.
You were wrong.

Not from the Poor; the Poor would be paying more in income taxes and creating more in demand. Labor pays income tax while the employer pays corporate taxes..

Not from the Poor; the Poor would be paying more in income taxes

Why limit it to the poor? Is it because you're dishonest or because you're ignorant?

Less overall income taxes collected.

and creating more in demand.

And employers would reduce their demand.

Labor pays income tax while the employer pays corporate taxes..

Yes, the reduction in corporate income taxes paid is larger than the increase in individual income taxes paid

Because we are quibbing. Why limit minimum wage increases for the Poor and not the Rich?

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.--https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/

You are deliberately being ambiguous and disingenuous; are you dishonest or ignorant?

Employers can only reduce their demand for labor by a certain amount or they lose productivity and profit.

The reduction you claim happens with the lower wage rate as well; simply making more money means taxing that more money, regardless of the deductibility by the employer.

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5%

You're lying.

Employers can only reduce their demand for labor by a certain amount

Where did I say their demand for labor was the only reduction?

or they lose productivity and profit.

Paying workers more than they produce is a sure way to reduce profit.

I provided the link. I don't need to lie, I have valid arguments.

The point is, employers can only reduce so much labor and typically less than a nine to one ratio. Federal income tax is nine times more for labor at fifteen an hour than it is for the current minimum wage.

Pay has not kept up with production or the minimum wage would be somewhere around eighteen to twenty-one dollars an hour.

I provided the link. I don't need to lie,

You lied. The link doesn't say "From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5%"

Pay has not kept up with production or the minimum wage would be somewhere around eighteen to twenty-one dollars an hour.

What is the increase in productivity for minimum wage workers? Link?

Why did you copy the link if it was inaccurate? Hoaxster.

The Productivity–Pay Gap

The huge gap between rising incomes at the top and stagnating pay for the rest of us shows that workers are no longer benefiting from their rising productivity. Before 1979, worker pay and productivity grew in tandem. But since 1979, productivity has grown eight times faster than typical worker...

www.epi.org

You lied. Liar.

You are mistaken, like usual. What did I allegedly lie about?

"From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5%"

Your mistake not mine. Did you not understand the concept?

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.

CEO compensation has grown 940% since 1978: Typical worker compensation has risen only 12% during that time

The latest report in EPI’s annual series analyzing current and long-term trends in CEO compensation.

www.epi.org

Did you not understand the concept?

I do understand. That's why I know it's a lie.

 

[danielpalos]

It matters if we have to quibble.

The error in your claim was not a quibble.

Lower income tax receipts is not higher income tax receipts.
You were wrong.

Not from the Poor; the Poor would be paying more in income taxes and creating more in demand. Labor pays income tax while the employer pays corporate taxes..

Not from the Poor; the Poor would be paying more in income taxes

Why limit it to the poor? Is it because you're dishonest or because you're ignorant?

Less overall income taxes collected.

and creating more in demand.

And employers would reduce their demand.

Labor pays income tax while the employer pays corporate taxes..

Yes, the reduction in corporate income taxes paid is larger than the increase in individual income taxes paid

Because we are quibbing. Why limit minimum wage increases for the Poor and not the Rich?

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.--https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/

You are deliberately being ambiguous and disingenuous; are you dishonest or ignorant?

Employers can only reduce their demand for labor by a certain amount or they lose productivity and profit.

The reduction you claim happens with the lower wage rate as well; simply making more money means taxing that more money, regardless of the deductibility by the employer.

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5%

You're lying.

Employers can only reduce their demand for labor by a certain amount

Where did I say their demand for labor was the only reduction?

or they lose productivity and profit.

Paying workers more than they produce is a sure way to reduce profit.

I provided the link. I don't need to lie, I have valid arguments.

The point is, employers can only reduce so much labor and typically less than a nine to one ratio. Federal income tax is nine times more for labor at fifteen an hour than it is for the current minimum wage.

Pay has not kept up with production or the minimum wage would be somewhere around eighteen to twenty-one dollars an hour.

I provided the link. I don't need to lie,

You lied. The link doesn't say "From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5%"

Pay has not kept up with production or the minimum wage would be somewhere around eighteen to twenty-one dollars an hour.

What is the increase in productivity for minimum wage workers? Link?

Why did you copy the link if it was inaccurate? Hoaxster.

The Productivity–Pay Gap

The huge gap between rising incomes at the top and stagnating pay for the rest of us shows that workers are no longer benefiting from their rising productivity. Before 1979, worker pay and productivity grew in tandem. But since 1979, productivity has grown eight times faster than typical worker...

www.epi.org

You lied. Liar.

You are mistaken, like usual. What did I allegedly lie about?

"From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5%"

Your mistake not mine. Did you not understand the concept?

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.

CEO compensation has grown 940% since 1978: Typical worker compensation has risen only 12% during that time

The latest report in EPI’s annual series analyzing current and long-term trends in CEO compensation.

www.epi.org

Did you not understand the concept?

I do understand. That's why I know it's a lie.

What part is the lie?

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5%

This part is the lie.

Go back and read the first paragraph of the summary.

Let me know if you catch what you missed.

 

[danielpalos]

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5%

This part is the lie.

Go back and read the first paragraph of the summary.

Let me know if you catch what you missed.

Not my mistake. Did you miss the part about realized options? The difference is those CEOs with unrealized options have more value.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5%

This part is the lie.

Go back and read the first paragraph of the summary.

Let me know if you catch what you missed.

Not my mistake. Did you miss the part about realized options? The difference is those CEOs with unrealized options have more value.

Did you miss the part about realized options?

Did you miss the part I highlighted?

 

[danielpalos]

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5%

This part is the lie.

Go back and read the first paragraph of the summary.

Let me know if you catch what you missed.

Not my mistake. Did you miss the part about realized options? The difference is those CEOs with unrealized options have more value.

Did you miss the part about realized options?

Did you miss the part I highlighted?

View attachment 416532

Your point?

Capitalism is about inequality inducing boom and bust cycles. The Richest get richer under Capitalism.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your point?

That the CEOs of the 350 largest corporations aren't the over 200,000 CEOs in the US.

 

[danielpalos]

Your point?

That the CEOs of the 350 largest corporations aren't the over 200,000 CEOs in the US.

I am not claiming they are. I am claiming the Richest get richer with tax cut economics, at the expense of the general welfare.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your point?

That the CEOs of the 350 largest corporations aren't the over 200,000 CEOs in the US.

I am not claiming they are. I am claiming the Richest get richer with tax cut economics, at the expense of the general welfare.

I am not claiming they are.

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure),

Liar.

 

[danielpalos]

Your point?

That the CEOs of the 350 largest corporations aren't the over 200,000 CEOs in the US.

I am not claiming they are. I am claiming the Richest get richer with tax cut economics, at the expense of the general welfare.

I am not claiming they are.

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure),

Liar.

Not at all. I provided the link to clarify that inference. I am still claiming the Richest get richer at the expense of the general welfare.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your point?

That the CEOs of the 350 largest corporations aren't the over 200,000 CEOs in the US.

I am not claiming they are. I am claiming the Richest get richer with tax cut economics, at the expense of the general welfare.

I am not claiming they are.

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure),

Liar.

Not at all. I provided the link to clarify that inference. I am still claiming the Richest get richer at the expense of the general welfare.

You lied about your link.

 

[danielpalos]

Your point?

That the CEOs of the 350 largest corporations aren't the over 200,000 CEOs in the US.

I am not claiming they are. I am claiming the Richest get richer with tax cut economics, at the expense of the general welfare.

I am not claiming they are.

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure),

Liar.

Not at all. I provided the link to clarify that inference. I am still claiming the Richest get richer at the expense of the general welfare.

You lied about your link.

You simply don't understand the concept. I merely quoted the link.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your point?

That the CEOs of the 350 largest corporations aren't the over 200,000 CEOs in the US.

I am not claiming they are. I am claiming the Richest get richer with tax cut economics, at the expense of the general welfare.

I am not claiming they are.

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure),

Liar.

Not at all. I provided the link to clarify that inference. I am still claiming the Richest get richer at the expense of the general welfare.

You lied about your link.

You simply don't understand the concept. I merely quoted the link.

You lied about it. I understand the concept completely.