Minimum wage rate and labors’ market prices.

[Supposn]

should the federal minimum wage rate not be increased by 2025, the financial consequences upon 32% of USA’s work force would range from critically to substantially detrimental, is what’s ridiculous.

$600, not critical. At all.
Your hyperbole is hysterical.

Toddsterpatriot, you continue to post disingenuous responses. You pretend to believe the federal minimum wage rate only effects those earning exactly or very near to only $7.25 per hour.

Congressional Budget Office’s published reports indicate in their opinion, that the federal minimum wage rate increases the purchasing power of all aggregate wage rates within what they consider to be within the lower rate bracket of wages. If the federal minimum wage rate is not increased, (i.e. if it remains at $7.25 per hour) in 2025, they consider less than $20 per hour will be the lower rate bracket in 2025. That would then be 32% of USA’s work forces.

Failure to increase the minimum rate by 2025 would detrimentally affect lower-rate bracket’s purchasing powers, and those effects would range from critical to substantial.
It is you that misunderstands CBO’s publications regarding the federal minimum wage rate. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[danielpalos]

As I assume you are aware, we support a "free-market", which means not having controls on what voluntary exchanges people engage in, which would include the voluntary exchange of labor for pay.

How does that work with your right wing trade wars and sanctions against China and Venezuela? Does hypocrisy account for false Capitalists and false Capitalism?

 

[dblack]

should the federal minimum wage rate not be increased by 2025, the financial consequences upon 32% of USA’s work force would range from critically to substantially detrimental, is what’s ridiculous.

$600, not critical. At all.
Your hyperbole is hysterical.

Toddsterpatriot, you continue to post disingenuous responses. You pretend to believe the federal minimum wage rate only effects those earning exactly or very near to only $7.25 per hour.

And you pretend it won't cause inflation and unemployment. Go team!

 

[danielpalos]

should the federal minimum wage rate not be increased by 2025, the financial consequences upon 32% of USA’s work force would range from critically to substantially detrimental, is what’s ridiculous.

$600, not critical. At all.
Your hyperbole is hysterical.

Toddsterpatriot, you continue to post disingenuous responses. You pretend to believe the federal minimum wage rate only effects those earning exactly or very near to only $7.25 per hour.

And you pretend it won't cause inflation and unemployment. Go team!

Inflation happens regardless; and, the minimum wage not keeping up with inflation is worse since more people will need more expensive social services which drives up the Cost of Government. Unemployment could be solved by unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States. How many people with recourse to unemployment compensation simply being unemployed would want to be homeless? People could find it easier to transition to new jobs by taking the time to upgrade their skills, with recourse to an income.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

should the federal minimum wage rate not be increased by 2025, the financial consequences upon 32% of USA’s work force would range from critically to substantially detrimental, is what’s ridiculous.

$600, not critical. At all.
Your hyperbole is hysterical.

Toddsterpatriot, you continue to post disingenuous responses. You pretend to believe the federal minimum wage rate only effects those earning exactly or very near to only $7.25 per hour.

Congressional Budget Office’s published reports indicate in their opinion, that the federal minimum wage rate increases the purchasing power of all aggregate wage rates within what they consider to be within the lower rate bracket of wages. If the federal minimum wage rate is not increased, (i.e. if it remains at $7.25 per hour) in 2025, they consider less than $20 per hour will be the lower rate bracket in 2025. That would then be 32% of USA’s work forces.

Failure to increase the minimum rate by 2025 would detrimentally affect lower-rate bracket’s purchasing powers, and those effects would range from critical to substantial.
It is you that misunderstands CBO’s publications regarding the federal minimum wage rate. Respectfully, Supposn

If the federal minimum wage rate is not increased, (i.e. if it remains at $7.25 per hour) in 2025, they consider less than $20 per hour will be the lower rate bracket in 2025. That would then be 32% of USA’s work forces.

Does the CBO understand that the federal minimum wage rate effects more than those earning exactly $7.25 per hour?

Because they said the average increase in real family income with a $15 minimum wage was $600 or less.

 

[Andylusion]

... I had a guy I knew who started off as a part time employee of an auto parts store. Part time at the store was $8/hour. Today, he is now a branch store manager, making $60,000 a year.

If you had made the minimum wage $15/hours, they likely would never have hired him, and he wouldn't be where he is today.

Andylusion, if the minimum wage were $15 per hour, and an employer would not choose to hire “your guy” because he was over-priced, who would have been hired to manage the store?

{A} One alternative would be to close-down that retail outlet, which brings up another alternative. Other higher retail volume outlets could afford to pay their manager’s higher wages, because their higher payroll costs are justified by their lesser overhead costs per sales dollars. They'll "capture" much of the closed store's lost sales.

The store owners reduces their store’s hours and overhead, when sales volume’s do not justify the ($15/Hr. overhead). In such a case, competitors such as that of alternative [A] will capture those lost sales volumes.

[C] other methods of goods distribution, such as internet sales and home delivery, or sales through larger 24-hour supermarkets may be tried.

Within competitive open markets, (even in those markets affected by the federal minimum wage rate), the economy adjusts, everything’s in flux and subject to changes. There’s little that remains unchanged forever. Respectfully, Supossn

Andylusion, if the minimum wage were $15 per hour, and an employer would not choose to hire “your guy” because he was over-priced, who would have been hired to manage the store?

No one. The store would close.

$15 minimum wage hike is hitting, hurting NYC restaurants

Big Apple restaurants are feeling the heat from minimum wage hikes, cutting staff hours and even closing kitchens as they struggle to shoulder the extra payroll costs. Gabriela’s Restaurant and Teq…

nypost.com

Since the $15-an-hour minimum wage hit New York City in December, Liz and Nat Milner say, they’ve been forced to slash their full- and part-time staff to 45 people from 60. Quality has suffered, they admit, and customers have noticed: They’re not coming in like they used to, and when they do, they’re spending less.​

​

That's the point.

Who determines the value of the labor? Customers do. If the minimum wage, means the cost of labor is more expensive than the value to the customer, then customers stop buying the product or service.

If they stop buying the product or service, the store closes.

“We started by having to let go of the ladies who hand-made our tortillas. It’s certainly better when you can make your tortillas fresh for every taco,” Nat Milner said. “It made sense at $8 an hour but not at $15.”​

​

Gabriela’s was then forced to lay off “two overnight cleaners, a whole level of middle management, the general manager, the extra servers we’d keep on in case it got busy — and then we started cutting hours.”​

See?

Mandating a higher price for labor, doesn't mean the labor is worth the higher price. Customers are not going to pay $30 for a cheap taco, because some ladies that only roll tortillas, are now paid $15/hour.

The store owners reduces their store’s hours and overhead, when sales volume’s do not justify the ($15/Hr. overhead). In such a case, competitors such as that of alternative [A] will capture those lost sales volumes.

At the expense of lost jobs. There is no method where a competitor can capture lost sales, without cutting the expense somehow.

For example, you can mass produce the tacos above through a streamlines assembly. But... the quality is going to be lower, and you are using far fewer people, to produce more goods.

That means the customers lose out on quality. The employees lose out on jobs. More unemployment. More people on welfare. More people struggling or homeless. More mental health issues. And more people turning to crime, because they can't find legal work.

 

[Supposn]

And you pretend it, [i.e. increasing the federal minimum wage rate] won't cause inflation and unemployment. Go team!

DBlack, when the federal minimum wage rate is or is not increased, the U.S dollar continues to lose purchasing power. Our minimum wage rate is not among the primary drivers of our dollar's inflation or unemployment. Of course, there are many fools believing otherwise.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Our minimum wage rate is not among the primary drivers of our dollar's inflation or unemployment.

Of course not.
The bottom 1.5% of hourly earners aren't the drivers of much of anything.

 

[Supposn]

Andylusion, national economies are messy. They do not actually deliver the consequential the perfectly straight-line graphs drawn by proponents of entirely government regulated economies, (i.e. socialist), or drawn by pure “laissez-faire” proponents, (i.e libertarians or anarchist). (I suppose the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, (i.e. North Korea) will, as has all attempts for national “economic purity”, fail.

Both yours’ and my posts describe the very same messy national economy, except if yours does not have a minimum wage rate, is a poorer economy.

You don’t believe there’s a logical reason why every national government able to a reasonable extent enforce their laws, has something government supported, that’s similar to, or serves the purpose our federal minimum wage rate?
The alternative of not having such provisions within their laws, would be often suffering their nations’ wage rates being driven down and consequentially increasing the incidences and extents of poverty within their nations.
Eliminating USA’s minimum wage laws would be economically unjustified. Respectfully, Supposn

Minimum wage is an issue of character. The essence of personal and political opposition to the FMW rate.

The federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate is of net social and economic benefit to our nation. It has never been among the major causes of the U.S. dollar’s inflation; on the contrary, it’s certainly among inflations’ victims. No employees are poorer, and no enterprises suffer any competitive disadvantage to any USA enterprises due to the FMW rate.

[there’s no doubt that USA’s higher wage rates are a cause of our products’ price disadvantages in comparison to products from lower-wage nations; but although the elimination of our FMW rate laws would be greatly detrimental to our nation’s net social and economic well-being, eliminating it would accomplish extremely little to remedy our products’ global price disadvantages.
[Refer to Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article.]

I suppose most USA’s population, (significantly more than a 10% plurality) to some extent approve of federal minimum rate’s existence. There are few among wealthy or competent people that are opposed to the federal minimum rate.

A great proportion of minimum rate opponents lack self-esteem. They need whatever affirmation of their own worth that they can derive by being able to look down upon people experiencing lesser financial conditions. They cannot acknowledge even to themselves their fears of improving the financial conditions of others would consequentially reduce their own social status. That’s the essence of personal and political opposition to the FMW rate. …

“laize fair” proponents, (i.e libertarians or anarchist). (I suppose the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, (i.e. North Korea) will, as has every all attempts for national “economic purity”, failed.
Both yours’ and my posts describe a messy national economy.

You don’t believe there’s a logical reason why every national government able to a reasonable extent to enforce their laws, has something government supported, that’s similar to, or serves the purpose our federal minimum wage rate?
The alternative of not having such provisions within their laws, would be often suffering their nations’ wage rates being driven down and consequentially increasing the incidences and extents of poverty within their nations.

Eliminating USA’s minimum wage laws would be economically unjustified. Respectfully, Supposn

Minimum wage is an issue of character. The essence of personal and political opposition to the FMW rate.

The federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate is of net social and economic benefit to our nation. It has never been among the major causes of the U.S. dollar’s inflation; on the contrary, it’s certainly among inflations’ victims.
No employees are poorer, and no enterprises suffer any competitive disadvantage to any USA enterprises due to the FMW rate.

[there’s no doubt that USA’s higher wage rates are a cause of our products’ price disadvantages in comparison to products from lower-wage nations; but although the elimination of our FMW rate laws would be greatly detrimental to our nation’s net social and economic well-being, eliminating it would accomplish extremely little to remedy our products’ global price disadvantages.
[Refer to Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article.]

I suppose most USA’s population, (significantly more than a 10% plurality) to some extent approve of federal minimum rate’s existence. There are few among wealthy or competent people that are opposed to the federal minimum rate.

A great proportion of minimum rate opponents lack self-esteem. They need whatever affirmation of their own worth that they can derive by being able to look down upon people experiencing lesser financial conditions. They cannot acknowledge even to themselves their fears of improving the financial conditions of others would consequentially reduce their own social status. That’s the essence of personal and political opposition to the FMW rate. …

 

[Supposn]

Andylusion, both yours and my posts describe the very same messy USA economy; except, unlike your perception of what you believe should have been the consequences of increasing our federal minimum wage rate, due to the anticipation and enactment of those increases, our nation’s GDP, numbers of jobs, and payrolls have net increased. You think there’s something you’re not seeing? Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Andylusion, national economies are messy. They do not actually deliver the consequential the perfectly straight-line graphs drawn by proponents of entirely government regulated economies, (i.e. socialist), or drawn by pure “laissez-faire” proponents, (i.e libertarians or anarchist). (I suppose the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, (i.e. North Korea) will, as has all attempts for national “economic purity”, fail.

Both yours’ and my posts describe the very same messy national economy, except if yours does not have a minimum wage rate, is a poorer economy.

You don’t believe there’s a logical reason why every national government able to a reasonable extent enforce their laws, has something government supported, that’s similar to, or serves the purpose our federal minimum wage rate?
The alternative of not having such provisions within their laws, would be often suffering their nations’ wage rates being driven down and consequentially increasing the incidences and extents of poverty within their nations.
Eliminating USA’s minimum wage laws would be economically unjustified. Respectfully, Supposn

Minimum wage is an issue of character. The essence of personal and political opposition to the FMW rate.

The federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate is of net social and economic benefit to our nation. It has never been among the major causes of the U.S. dollar’s inflation; on the contrary, it’s certainly among inflations’ victims. No employees are poorer, and no enterprises suffer any competitive disadvantage to any USA enterprises due to the FMW rate.

[there’s no doubt that USA’s higher wage rates are a cause of our products’ price disadvantages in comparison to products from lower-wage nations; but although the elimination of our FMW rate laws would be greatly detrimental to our nation’s net social and economic well-being, eliminating it would accomplish extremely little to remedy our products’ global price disadvantages.
[Refer to Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article.]

I suppose most USA’s population, (significantly more than a 10% plurality) to some extent approve of federal minimum rate’s existence. There are few among wealthy or competent people that are opposed to the federal minimum rate.

A great proportion of minimum rate opponents lack self-esteem. They need whatever affirmation of their own worth that they can derive by being able to look down upon people experiencing lesser financial conditions. They cannot acknowledge even to themselves their fears of improving the financial conditions of others would consequentially reduce their own social status. That’s the essence of personal and political opposition to the FMW rate. …

“laize fair” proponents, (i.e libertarians or anarchist). (I suppose the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, (i.e. North Korea) will, as has every all attempts for national “economic purity”, failed.
Both yours’ and my posts describe a messy national economy.

You don’t believe there’s a logical reason why every national government able to a reasonable extent to enforce their laws, has something government supported, that’s similar to, or serves the purpose our federal minimum wage rate?
The alternative of not having such provisions within their laws, would be often suffering their nations’ wage rates being driven down and consequentially increasing the incidences and extents of poverty within their nations.

Eliminating USA’s minimum wage laws would be economically unjustified. Respectfully, Supposn

Minimum wage is an issue of character. The essence of personal and political opposition to the FMW rate.

The federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate is of net social and economic benefit to our nation. It has never been among the major causes of the U.S. dollar’s inflation; on the contrary, it’s certainly among inflations’ victims.
No employees are poorer, and no enterprises suffer any competitive disadvantage to any USA enterprises due to the FMW rate.

[there’s no doubt that USA’s higher wage rates are a cause of our products’ price disadvantages in comparison to products from lower-wage nations; but although the elimination of our FMW rate laws would be greatly detrimental to our nation’s net social and economic well-being, eliminating it would accomplish extremely little to remedy our products’ global price disadvantages.
[Refer to Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article.]

I suppose most USA’s population, (significantly more than a 10% plurality) to some extent approve of federal minimum rate’s existence. There are few among wealthy or competent people that are opposed to the federal minimum rate.

A great proportion of minimum rate opponents lack self-esteem. They need whatever affirmation of their own worth that they can derive by being able to look down upon people experiencing lesser financial conditions. They cannot acknowledge even to themselves their fears of improving the financial conditions of others would consequentially reduce their own social status. That’s the essence of personal and political opposition to the FMW rate. …

No employees are poorer and no enterprises suffer any competitive disadvantage to any USA enterprises due to the FMW rate.

The people who are made poorer by the FMW are those who are never hired because the FMW is more than their value added.

but although the elimination of our FMW rate laws would be greatly detrimental to our nation’s net social and economic well-being,

Evidence of your claim would be nice.

A great proportion of minimum rate opponents lack self-esteem.

Wow, Milton Friedman and Sigmund Freud all in one!!

 

[Supposn]

Supposn posts were: Our minimum wage rate is not among the primary drivers of our dollar's inflation or unemployment … although the elimination of our FMW rate laws would be greatly detrimental to our nation’s net social and economic well-being,

ToddsterPatriot responses were: Of course not. The bottom 1.5% of hourly earners aren't the drivers of much of anything … Evidence of your claim would be nice.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

ToddsterPatriot, the federal minimum wage rate, (which you acknowledge is not among the primary drivers of the U.S. dollar’s inflation), in the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates. affects 32% of all USA’s employees to extents ranging from the critical for the lowest, to substantial for the highest rates within our nation’s low-wage rate bracket.
But you don’t consider that of any economic consequence?

I don’t have any mining claims, but there are many statements within my posts that are based upon the Congressional Budget office’s opinions and expectations.
Mention 32 % of USA’s employees being within the low-wage bracket of wage rates, is found 2025 “Projected Shares of Low-Wage Workers” table on page 10
of https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf .

The concepts of the minimum wage rate being of more support to lower, and of less support to higher wage rates are derived from “Effects of Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage on Average Annual Real Family Income, 2025” table on page 15 of the same publication.

We encounter similar such mentions throughout CBO’s publications and reports regarding the federal minimum wage rate. These mentions are in regard federal minimum wage rate increases or lack of increasing the minimum rate. What you advocate, repealing all to USA minimum wage rates would have more dire economic and social consequences upon our national well-being.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Supposn posts were: Our minimum wage rate is not among the primary drivers of our dollar's inflation or unemployment … although the elimination of our FMW rate laws would be greatly detrimental to our nation’s net social and economic well-being,

ToddsterPatriot responses were: Of course not. The bottom 1.5% of hourly earners aren't the drivers of much of anything … Evidence of your claim would be nice.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

ToddsterPatriot, the federal minimum wage rate, (which you acknowledge is not among the primary drivers of the U.S. dollar’s inflation), in the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates. affects 32% of all USA’s employees to extents ranging from the critical for the lowest, to substantial for the highest rates within our nation’s low-wage rate bracket.
But you don’t consider that of any economic consequence?

I don’t have any mining claims, but there are many statements within my posts that are based upon the Congressional Budget office’s opinions and expectations.
Mention 32 % of USA’s employees being within the low-wage bracket of wage rates, is found 2025 “Projected Shares of Low-Wage Workers” table on page 10
of https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-07/CBO-55410-MinimumWage2019.pdf .

The concepts of the minimum wage rate being of more support to lower, and of less support to higher wage rates are derived from “Effects of Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage on Average Annual Real Family Income, 2025” table on page 15 of the same publication.

We encounter similar such mentions throughout CBO’s publications and reports regarding the federal minimum wage rate. These mentions are in regard federal minimum wage rate increases or lack of increasing the minimum rate. What you advocate, repealing all to USA minimum wage rates would have more dire economic and social consequences upon our national well-being.

Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, the federal minimum wage rate, (which you acknowledge is not among the primary drivers of the U.S. dollar’s inflation), in the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates. affects 32% of all USA’s employees to extents ranging from the critical for the lowest, to substantial for the highest rates within our nation’s low-wage rate bracket.

Do you have a CBO source that uses the words "critical" and "substantial"?

The concepts of the minimum wage rate being of more support to lower, and of less support to higher wage rates are derived from “Effects of Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage on Average Annual Real Family Income, 2025” table on page 15 of the same publication.

Page 15? Great page. Love that page!!!

You see where it shows the maximum average increase in real family income is $600?
And maybe you missed the totals at the bottom, left-side of my screenshot?
Employed workers see an increase of $64 billion.
Newly unemployed workers would see a decrease of $20 billion.
Real income for business owners would see a decrease of $14 billion.
Real income for consumers decreases by $39 billion.

Looks like a combined reduction of $9 billion.

What you advocate, repealing all to USA minimum wage rates would have more dire economic and social consequences upon our national well-being.

Repealing the Federal Minimum Wage would have a tiny impact, mostly positive.
As your link shows, a $15/HR Minimum Wage would have a net negative impact.

 

[danielpalos]

... I had a guy I knew who started off as a part time employee of an auto parts store. Part time at the store was $8/hour. Today, he is now a branch store manager, making $60,000 a year.

If you had made the minimum wage $15/hours, they likely would never have hired him, and he wouldn't be where he is today.

Andylusion, if the minimum wage were $15 per hour, and an employer would not choose to hire “your guy” because he was over-priced, who would have been hired to manage the store?

{A} One alternative would be to close-down that retail outlet, which brings up another alternative. Other higher retail volume outlets could afford to pay their manager’s higher wages, because their higher payroll costs are justified by their lesser overhead costs per sales dollars. They'll "capture" much of the closed store's lost sales.

The store owners reduces their store’s hours and overhead, when sales volume’s do not justify the ($15/Hr. overhead). In such a case, competitors such as that of alternative [A] will capture those lost sales volumes.

[C] other methods of goods distribution, such as internet sales and home delivery, or sales through larger 24-hour supermarkets may be tried.

Within competitive open markets, (even in those markets affected by the federal minimum wage rate), the economy adjusts, everything’s in flux and subject to changes. There’s little that remains unchanged forever. Respectfully, Supossn

Andylusion, if the minimum wage were $15 per hour, and an employer would not choose to hire “your guy” because he was over-priced, who would have been hired to manage the store?

No one. The store would close.

$15 minimum wage hike is hitting, hurting NYC restaurants

Big Apple restaurants are feeling the heat from minimum wage hikes, cutting staff hours and even closing kitchens as they struggle to shoulder the extra payroll costs. Gabriela’s Restaurant and Teq…

nypost.com

Since the $15-an-hour minimum wage hit New York City in December, Liz and Nat Milner say, they’ve been forced to slash their full- and part-time staff to 45 people from 60. Quality has suffered, they admit, and customers have noticed: They’re not coming in like they used to, and when they do, they’re spending less.​

​

That's the point.

Who determines the value of the labor? Customers do. If the minimum wage, means the cost of labor is more expensive than the value to the customer, then customers stop buying the product or service.

If they stop buying the product or service, the store closes.

“We started by having to let go of the ladies who hand-made our tortillas. It’s certainly better when you can make your tortillas fresh for every taco,” Nat Milner said. “It made sense at $8 an hour but not at $15.”​

​

Gabriela’s was then forced to lay off “two overnight cleaners, a whole level of middle management, the general manager, the extra servers we’d keep on in case it got busy — and then we started cutting hours.”​

See?

Mandating a higher price for labor, doesn't mean the labor is worth the higher price. Customers are not going to pay $30 for a cheap taco, because some ladies that only roll tortillas, are now paid $15/hour.

The store owners reduces their store’s hours and overhead, when sales volume’s do not justify the ($15/Hr. overhead). In such a case, competitors such as that of alternative [A] will capture those lost sales volumes.

At the expense of lost jobs. There is no method where a competitor can capture lost sales, without cutting the expense somehow.

For example, you can mass produce the tacos above through a streamlines assembly. But... the quality is going to be lower, and you are using far fewer people, to produce more goods.

That means the customers lose out on quality. The employees lose out on jobs. More unemployment. More people on welfare. More people struggling or homeless. More mental health issues. And more people turning to crime, because they can't find legal work.

Small businesses fail regardless. And, business should fail if they can Only make it on the back of Cheap labor.

20% of small businesses fail in their first year, 30% of small business fail in their second year, and 50% of small businesses fail after five years in business. Finally, 70% of small business owners fail in their 10th year in business.--https://www.fundera.com/blog/what-percentage-of-small-businesses-fail#:~:text=What%20Is%20the%20Small%20Business,their%2010th%20year%20in%20business.

 

[danielpalos]

Since the $15-an-hour minimum wage hit New York City in December, Liz and Nat Milner say, they’ve been forced to slash their full- and part-time staff to 45 people from 60. Quality has suffered, they admit, and customers have noticed: They’re not coming in like they used to, and when they do, they’re spending less.

Not at all; their business model failed them. Remember Hostess and their management blaming Labor for not accepting more pay cuts while management got pay increases?

 

[Supposn]

ToddsterPatriot, the federal minimum wage rate, (which you acknowledge is not among the primary drivers of the U.S. dollar’s inflation), in the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates. affects 32% of all USA’s employees to extents ranging from the critical for the lowest, to substantial for the highest rates within our nation’s low-wage rate bracket.

Do you have a CBO source that uses the words "critical" and "substantial"?

The concepts of the minimum wage rate being of more support to lower, and of less support to higher wage rates are derived from “Effects of Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage on Average Annual Real Family Income, 2025” table on page 15 of the same publication.

Page 15? Great page. Love that page!!! ... • 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, • Real income for business owners would decrease by $14 billion, and • Real income for consumers would decrease by $39 billion. ...

ToddsterPatriot, refer to How Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage Could Affect Employment and Family Income | Congressional Budget Office ; it’s an interactive report. I chose to use the “raise the wage”, [H.R. 582] option as passed by the Congressional House).
Referring to the “Average Percentage Change in Real Family Income, by Income Group” table.

In 2025 CBO’s opinions and expectations were of no perceivable difference of U.S. aggregate families real incomes due to the minimum rate achieving $15 per hour but they expect differences among families of different income segments.
CBO expect in aggregate, only families of incomes exceeding 6 or more times the poverty threshold would experience reductions of incomes. They expect the reductions would be less than 2% of those families’ incomes. All other segments of USA’s families would in aggregate experience no reductions or increases of their incomes due to the $15 per hour federal minimum wage rate. Beyond 2025, because the proposed act would continue to retain the minimum rate’s purchasing power, the act continues to be of net benefit to the nation’s economic and social well-being.

Expected income benefits due to increases of the minimum wage are inversely related to families’ wage incomes. Due to the minimum wage rate, poorer families benefit more, and higher earning families benefit less due to the minimum wage rate. This correlates with the portion of your post I here quoted. (You mention the consequential desirable net increases of USA’s wage incomes and rates due to increases of the federal minimum wage rate).

"We all do better when we all do better" Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Oddball]

And you pretend it, [i.e. increasing the federal minimum wage rate] won't cause inflation and unemployment. Go team!

DBlack, when the federal minimum wage rate is or is not increased, the U.S dollar continues to lose purchasing power. Our minimum wage rate is not among the primary drivers of our dollar's inflation or unemployment. Of course, there are many fools believing otherwise.

Respectfully, Supposn

Regardless of all of this....Where is written the feds' power to centrally control the prices of anything, let alone labor?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ToddsterPatriot, the federal minimum wage rate, (which you acknowledge is not among the primary drivers of the U.S. dollar’s inflation), in the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates. affects 32% of all USA’s employees to extents ranging from the critical for the lowest, to substantial for the highest rates within our nation’s low-wage rate bracket.

Do you have a CBO source that uses the words "critical" and "substantial"?

The concepts of the minimum wage rate being of more support to lower, and of less support to higher wage rates are derived from “Effects of Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage on Average Annual Real Family Income, 2025” table on page 15 of the same publication.

Page 15? Great page. Love that page!!! ... • 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, • Real income for business owners would decrease by $14 billion, and • Real income for consumers would decrease by $39 billion. ...

ToddsterPatriot, refer to How Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage Could Affect Employment and Family Income | Congressional Budget Office ; it’s an interactive report using CBO’s inter-active report and choosing the “raise the wage”, (H.R. 582) option as passed by the Congressional House) option.
Referring to the “Average Percentage Change in Real Family Income, by Income Group” table.

In 2025 CBO’s opinions and expectations were of no perceivable difference of U.S. aggregate families real incomes due to the minimum rate achieving $15 per hour but they expect differences among families of different income segments.
CBO expect in aggregate, only families of incomes exceeding 6 or more times the poverty threshold would experience reductions of incomes. They expect the reductions would be less than 2% of those families’ incomes. All other segments of USA’s families would in aggregate experience no reductions or increases of their incomes due to the $15 per hour federal minimum wage rate. Beyond 2025, because the proposed act would continue to retain the minimum rate’s purchasing power, the act continues to be of net benefit to the nation’s economic and social well-being.

Expected income benefits due to increases of the minimum wage are inversely related to families’ wage incomes. Due to the minimum wage rate, poorer families benefit more, and higher earning families benefit less due to the minimum wage rate. This correlates with te experted portion of your post I here quoted. (You mention the consequential desirable net increases of USA’s wage incomes and rates due to increases of the federal minimum wage rate).

"We all do better when we all do better" Respectfully, Supposn

CBO expect in aggregate, only families of incomes exceeding 6 or more times the poverty threshold would experience reductions of incomes.

You're confused about your own source, again!

Workers who used to work at wages below $15, who are now unemployed at $15,
see earnings decrease by $20 billion. Business owners see income decrease by $14 billion.
And, largest of all, real income for consumers decreases by $39 billion.

Did you have a real source for the CBO
saying the $600 (or smaller) increase was "critical" or "substantial"?

Or did you make up that claim?

 

[dblack]

And you pretend it, [i.e. increasing the federal minimum wage rate] won't cause inflation and unemployment. Go team!

DBlack, when the federal minimum wage rate is or is not increased, the U.S dollar continues to lose purchasing power. Our minimum wage rate is not among the primary drivers of our dollar's inflation or unemployment. Of course, there are many fools believing otherwise.

Respectfully, Supposn

Regardless of all of this....Where is written the feds' power to centrally control the prices of anything, let alone labor?

Communist Manifesto

 

[TheHardTruth]

The minimum wage should be zero , I was just reading an article no where in the USA can a person afford a one bedroom apartment on minimum wage..so the $12 dollar minimum wage in Seattle is useless.

The minimum wage should be higher than the cost of social services, around fourteen dollars an hour. It is a reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage. If the minimum wage had kept up with inflation it would be eighteen dollars an hour, according some literature I have read.

The following is a deliberate run on sentence. It is so to make a point. If you want to understand the point, read it in it's entirety.
Socialists just don't get it....capitalism that is. The concept of a minimum wage creates a vicious circle. You raise the minimum wage so everyone will have a "living wage" today and can afford basic expenses like housing and food on their own and before you know it more people can afford their own apartment, causing a demand for apartments and a supply shortage driving the rents up as more people compete for the available apartments and the rents become unaffordable again and those employers who have to pay that higher wage have to raise their prices on the food and clothing they sell and once again the recipients of the higher minimum wage can no longer afford to live so you have to raise the minimum wage and once again everyone can afford basic expenses like housing and food on their own and before you know it more people can afford their own apartment, causing a demand for apartments and a supply shortage driving the rents up as more people compete for the available apartments and the rents become unaffordable again and those employers who have to pay that higher wage have to raise their prices on the food and clothing they sell and once again the recipients of the higher minimum wage can no longer afford to live so you have to raise the minimum wage and once again everyone can afford basic expenses like housing and food on their own and before you know it more people can afford their own apartment, causing a demand for apartments and a supply shortage driving the rents up as more people compete for the available apartments and the rents become unaffordable again and those employers who have to pay that higher wage have to raise their prices on the food and clothing they sell and once again the recipients of the higher minimum wage can no longer afford to live so you have to raise the minimum wage and once again everyone can afford basic expenses like housing and food on their own and before you know it more people can afford their own apartment, causing a demand for apartments and a supply shortage driving the rents up as more people compete for the available apartments and the rents become unaffordable again and those employers who have to pay that wage have to raise their prices on the food and clothing they sell and once again the recipients of the higher minimum wage can no longer afford to live so you have to raise the minimum wage and once again everyone can afford basic expenses like housing and food on their own and before you know it more people can afford their own apartment, causing a demand for apartments and a supply shortage driving the rents up as more people compete for the available apartments and the rents become unaffordable again and those employers who have to pay that higher wage have to raise their prices on the food and clothing they sell and once again the recipients of the higher minimum wage can no longer afford to live so you have to raise the minimum wage and once again everyone can afford basic expenses like housing and food on their own and before you know it more people can afford their own apartment, causing a demand for apartments and a supply shortage driving the rents up as more people compete for the available apartments and the rents become unaffordable again and those employers who have to pay that higher wage have to raise their prices on the food and clothing they sell and once again the recipients of the higher minimum wage can no longer afford to live so you have to raise the minimum wage and once again everyone can afford basic expenses like housing and food on their own and before you know it more people can afford their own apartment, causing a demand for apartments and a supply shortage driving the rents up as more people compete for the available apartments and the rents become unaffordable again and those employers who have to pay that wage have to raise their prices on the food and clothing they sell and once again the recipients of the higher minimum wage can no longer afford to live so you have to raise the minimum wage and once again everyone can afford basic expenses like housing and food on their own and before you .......

Did I make my point? Capitalism is self balancing. Supply and demand. If there is a job to be done, and someone willing to do it, and the compensation is acceptable to that someone, then the position gets filled, the job gets done and that someone gets paid. If there is a job to do, and there is someone willing to do it but not for the compensation being offered, then it doesn't get done UNLESS the the compensation is raised, not by mandate of the government but because of supply and demand. If you artificially raise wages by mandate and not through supply and demand, the EVERYTHING that wage is used to pay for will also rise in cost, making that artificially high wage no longer as valuable relative to cost. In essense you create artificial and perpetual inflation, further widening the income gap.