“Raise the Wage Act”, (H.R. 582) would have increased most USA’s wage-earning families’ incomes.

[Toddsterpatriot]

From 1978 to 2018, inflation-adjusted compensation based on realized stock options of the top CEOs increased 940.3%.

Yup.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Then stop complaining about social services for the Poor

No.

 

[Markle]

lol. Raise the minimum wage until they pay their share of taxes, right wingers. Or, do you believe in the nanny-State subsidizing the Rich with social services for the Poor, merey for the bottom line of the Rich? Persons Working minimum wage jobs should need no social services.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... (The minimum rate bolsters other wage rates, but it much more beneficial to lower rather than higher wage rate earners.)

Prove it.

Show how much wages would increase at the $100,000 level, if the Federal Minimum Wage
went from $7.25 up to $8.25. Do the same for the $50,000 level. Thanks!!!

Toddsterpatriot, the CBO did essentially demonstrate the validity of that concept. Respectfully, Supposn

“Raise the Wage Act”, (H.R. 582) would have increased most USA’s wage-earning families’ incomes. … Refer to the Congressional Budget office’s, (i.e. CBO’s) minimum wage rate report,
How Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage Could Affect Employment and Family Income | Congressional Budget Office, and follow the link’s instructions to obtain the HR [258, error; 582 is correct], interactive graphs.

Referring to the graph entitled “Average Percentage Change in Real Family Income, by Income Group”: The graph indicates average incomes of families earning less than 3 times the poverty threshold increase. Average incomes of higher income families do not perceivably begin to decrease until those incomes achieve 6 more times the poverty threshold.

(i.e. CBO’s study confirms minimum wage rate’s beneficial effects upon job’s rates are inversely related. Employees within the lowest wage rate brackets most benefit in proportion to their incomes, and those benefits (proportional to incomes) are incrementally lesser as incomes increase. Thus, the wage incomes of most USA’s wage earners would have benefit or would not be detrimentally affected by passage of H.R. 582.

[Six, (6) times a family of three’s income equal or exceeding 6 times the poverty threshold would be $122,000 per year and for a family of four it would well exceed $125,00 per year expressed in 2018 U.S. dollars.] … [/QUOTE

Employees within the lowest wage rate brackets most benefit in proportion to their incomes,

Except for the ones made unemployed or unemployable.

 

[Markle]

Measured using the value of stock options granted, CEO compensation rose 1,007.5% from 1978 to 2018.

One President is primarily responsible for the radical jump in top CEO compensation. Who is that President?

Why not provide a link? Tax cut economics seems to have done more for CEO compensation. And, wages actually outpaced inflation for Labor during some of the Clinton administration.

You're right, it was President Clinton who is responsible for the radical increases in top executives compensation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour

If that's all your unskilled ass can get...........congrats?

 

[task0778]

Right wingers only have right wing fantasy not any economic common sense.

ROFLMAO! Nominated for dumbass post of the year! It goes against the grain to denigrate someone else's post, but this is too outrageous to ignore. For a Lefty to say that right wingers have no economic sense is beyond ridiculous, not to mention super hypocrisy. The laws of supply and demand relative to cost are not a right wing fantasy, it is the basis for all economic thought that is based on reality. You cannot just substantially increase the cost of something (such as labor) without a corresponding consequence.

LOL. Yes, it is termed and styled, a positive multiplier effect in Any long run equilibrium.

Which is left wing gobbledegook that essentially is bullshit. The reality is that when costs such as labor go up then prices go up too, so there really isn't an increase in overall demand. Oh sure, the employees that get a raise is is helped unless of course his/her hours are reduced. Which does happen, no gain there, right? Or his hours are not cut, but his benefits are so his compensation remains about the same. Or the employer reduces the number of employees. 10 guys get more wages but 2 guys are out of a job, where's the increase in overall demand then? Or if it's small business the owner isn't getting the ROI after the rise in labor costs so he say fuck it and closes his business and puts his money elsewhere. You think that doesn't happen? Now all 10 employees are out of a job, how is overall demand looking now?

If the employer can afford to, he automates jobs. Resullt? Fewer jobs. And it is the small businesses that primarily get hurt because higher costs make them unable to compete with the larger companies and they can't afford to automate. You do know who is in favor of raising the minimum wage, right? The big corps, cuz you've reduced their local competition everywhere. They don't care, they can automate, or shift jobs to Mexico. When you raise the m-wage, it's the little guys that get fucked.

 

[DustyInfinity]

“Raise the Wage Act”, (H.R. 582) would have increased most USA’s wage-earning families’ incomes.

The last minimum wage bill that was proposed and considered in congress, was H.R. 258, “Raise the Wage Act”. It was passed by the Democratic majority house, then passed on to the Republican majority senate, (where it now lies effectively dead).
Refer to the Congressional Budget office’s, (i.e. CBO’s) minimum wage rate report,
How Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage Could Affect Employment and Family Income | Congressional Budget Office, and follow the link’s instructions to obtain the HR 258 interactive graphs.

Referring to the graph entitled “Average Percentage Change in Real Family Income, by Income Group”: The graph indicates average incomes of families earning less than 3 times the poverty threshold increase. Average incomes of higher income families do not perceivably begin to decrease until those incomes achieve 6 more times the poverty threshold;

(i.e. CBO’s study confirms minimum wage rate’s beneficial effects upon job’s rates are inversely related. Employees within the lowest wage rate brackets most benefit in proportion to their incomes, and those benefits (proportional to incomes) are incrementally lesser as incomes increase. Thus, the wage incomes of most USA’s wage earners would have benefit or would not be detrimentally affected by passage of H.R. 582.

[Six, (6) times a family of three’s income equal or exceeding 6 times the poverty threshold would be $122,000 per year and for a family of four it would well exceed $125,00 per year expressed in 2018 U.S. dollars.]
Respectfully, Supposn

/—-/ Hey let’s set minimum wage at $120,000 a year. Then everybody gets rich.

I was surprised when Wal Mart raised wages, and forced everyone else to compete with those wages, that inflation did not rise at all. I believed the argument that you couldn't address lower end wages without making prices go through the roof, but that is proven not to be true. I don't like artificial wage tinkering like Seattle and leftists cities, and going against market forces, and worry about people getting fired and job losses, like Seattle. However, It is still evident that lower wages can rise without runaway inflation. Either the experts were wrong, or they lied.

 

[Cellblock2429]

“Raise the Wage Act”, (H.R. 582) would have increased most USA’s wage-earning families’ incomes.

The last minimum wage bill that was proposed and considered in congress, was H.R. 258, “Raise the Wage Act”. It was passed by the Democratic majority house, then passed on to the Republican majority senate, (where it now lies effectively dead).
Refer to the Congressional Budget office’s, (i.e. CBO’s) minimum wage rate report,
How Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage Could Affect Employment and Family Income | Congressional Budget Office, and follow the link’s instructions to obtain the HR 258 interactive graphs.

Referring to the graph entitled “Average Percentage Change in Real Family Income, by Income Group”: The graph indicates average incomes of families earning less than 3 times the poverty threshold increase. Average incomes of higher income families do not perceivably begin to decrease until those incomes achieve 6 more times the poverty threshold;

(i.e. CBO’s study confirms minimum wage rate’s beneficial effects upon job’s rates are inversely related. Employees within the lowest wage rate brackets most benefit in proportion to their incomes, and those benefits (proportional to incomes) are incrementally lesser as incomes increase. Thus, the wage incomes of most USA’s wage earners would have benefit or would not be detrimentally affected by passage of H.R. 582.

[Six, (6) times a family of three’s income equal or exceeding 6 times the poverty threshold would be $122,000 per year and for a family of four it would well exceed $125,00 per year expressed in 2018 U.S. dollars.]
Respectfully, Supposn

/—-/ Hey let’s set minimum wage at $120,000 a year. Then everybody gets rich.

I was surprised when Wal Mart raised wages, and forced everyone else to compete with those wages, that inflation did not rise at all. I believed the argument that you couldn't address lower end wages without making prices go through the roof, but that is proven not to be true. I don't like artificial wage tinkering like Seattle and leftists cities, and going against market forces, and worry about people getting fired and job losses, like Seattle. However, It is still evident that lower wages can rise without runaway inflation. Either the experts were wrong, or they lied.

/----/ The money had to come from somewhere. Perhaps they cut cost in other departments.

 

[task0778]

“Raise the Wage Act”, (H.R. 582) would have increased most USA’s wage-earning families’ incomes.

The last minimum wage bill that was proposed and considered in congress, was H.R. 258, “Raise the Wage Act”. It was passed by the Democratic majority house, then passed on to the Republican majority senate, (where it now lies effectively dead).
Refer to the Congressional Budget office’s, (i.e. CBO’s) minimum wage rate report,
How Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage Could Affect Employment and Family Income | Congressional Budget Office, and follow the link’s instructions to obtain the HR 258 interactive graphs.

Referring to the graph entitled “Average Percentage Change in Real Family Income, by Income Group”: The graph indicates average incomes of families earning less than 3 times the poverty threshold increase. Average incomes of higher income families do not perceivably begin to decrease until those incomes achieve 6 more times the poverty threshold;

(i.e. CBO’s study confirms minimum wage rate’s beneficial effects upon job’s rates are inversely related. Employees within the lowest wage rate brackets most benefit in proportion to their incomes, and those benefits (proportional to incomes) are incrementally lesser as incomes increase. Thus, the wage incomes of most USA’s wage earners would have benefit or would not be detrimentally affected by passage of H.R. 582.

[Six, (6) times a family of three’s income equal or exceeding 6 times the poverty threshold would be $122,000 per year and for a family of four it would well exceed $125,00 per year expressed in 2018 U.S. dollars.]
Respectfully, Supposn

/—-/ Hey let’s set minimum wage at $120,000 a year. Then everybody gets rich.

I was surprised when Wal Mart raised wages, and forced everyone else to compete with those wages, that inflation did not rise at all. I believed the argument that you couldn't address lower end wages without making prices go through the roof, but that is proven not to be true. I don't like artificial wage tinkering like Seattle and leftists cities, and going against market forces, and worry about people getting fired and job losses, like Seattle. However, It is still evident that lower wages can rise without runaway inflation. Either the experts were wrong, or they lied.

There's much muttering around and about as it appears that Walmart has been cutting the working hours for some associates after the recently raised wages for them. Quite why there should be such muttering is unknown: for Walmart actually told us that this is what they were hoping would happen. Not quite flat out "we're raising wages so we can cut hours" but that was the obvious intention of the plan in the first place. For they did tell us that they wanted to raise wages so as to get less jobs churn and thus a more productive workforce. And a more productive workforce is the same as getting the same amount of work done while also using fewer labor hours. That's the definition of increased productivity in fact.
.
.
So, what was it that Walmart was actually trying to achieve with the pay raise? Well, part of this is the same reason that Henry Ford did his $5 a day thing. It was nothing at all to do with either it being just and righteous that people made more, nor was it the hope that the employees would spend more on the companies' products. Rather, turnover of employees costs money. You've got to find the new person to replace the one who has left, got to train them to get them up to speed. And thus reducing that jobs churn can save money overall: and one obvious way to reduce churn is to pay people better in the first place so they're less likely to leave. Now, this is all something of a delicate balance, the costs of the higher wages against the savings from the lower churn, but Walmart effectively said they were shifting their model a little. Paying slightly higher amounts in order to get less churn. Great.

Of Course Walmart Cut Hours After Raising Pay--What Did You Expect?

There's much muttering around and about as it appears that Walmart has been cutting the working hours for some associates after the recently raised wages for them. Quite why there should be such muttering is unknown: for Walmart actually told us that this is what they were hoping would happen. [...]

www.forbes.com

Hey, I got no problem with any company who voluntarily raises wages for business reasons or any other reasons for that matter. They can do whatever they want but notice also that they cut the number of employees or the number of hours worked per employee. So, how much did they actually increase their labor costs? And did they get a more productive workforce? Dunno, but it should be their call and NOT the gov'ts.

I suspect that as big as Walmart is, the overall increase in labor costs wasn't enough to move the needle nationally, cuz they also cut the hours worked of employees. Plus, they are BIG but they ain't THAT big.

 

[justinacolmena]

new set of gold tooth caps or something useful like that

King David has the right prescription for all dentists, all orthodontists and all oral surgeons.

Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O Lord.

All that's needed is a sledgehammer.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I'll make anyone a deal. We end the Federal Reserve and I'll quit sticking up for the poor.

Why should we end the Federal Reserve?
How is making unskilled workers permanently unemployable "sticking up for the poor"?

Trump said we had full employment so I have no idea what you are talking about. The work still needs done whether it's $8 or $12.

Nobody should take the right wing seriously about economics, the law, morals, or political solutions to our national problems.

/----/ Yeah, you libtards decided America had seen it's best days and it was all downhill. Your brand of socialism has failed everywhere in the world it's been tried. You call for corporate tax hikes without considering the harm it does including inflation. Draconian enviro laws that kill businesses and costs jobs. So you clowns are the ones who can't be taken seriously about economics.
View attachment 381149

LOL. Too bad you are not that great.
The Greatest of the Great, will always have you beat.

/---/ "Too bad you are not that great. The Greatest of the Great, will always have you beat."

Word for the day: A non sequitur is a statement that doesn't follow logically from the statements/premises that came before it.

 

[danielpalos]

From 1978 to 2018, inflation-adjusted compensation based on realized stock options of the top CEOs increased 940.3%.

Yup.

Crony.

 

[danielpalos]

Then stop complaining about social services for the Poor

No.

Hypocrite.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. Raise the minimum wage until they pay their share of taxes, right wingers. Or, do you believe in the nanny-State subsidizing the Rich with social services for the Poor, merey for the bottom line of the Rich? Persons Working minimum wage jobs should need no social services.

So you should not to subsidize the Rich with Nanny-Statism for the Poor. But, you don't. Worked instead of learning more at school?

 

[danielpalos]

Measured using the value of stock options granted, CEO compensation rose 1,007.5% from 1978 to 2018.

One President is primarily responsible for the radical jump in top CEO compensation. Who is that President?

Why not provide a link? Tax cut economics seems to have done more for CEO compensation. And, wages actually outpaced inflation for Labor during some of the Clinton administration.

You're right, it was President Clinton who is responsible for the radical increases in top executives compensation.

lol. Wages for the Poor also outpaced inflation during his administration. Have to take the Bad with the Good.

 

[danielpalos]

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour

If that's all your unskilled ass can get...........congrats?

Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment regardless if everyone was required to obtain a doctorate to participate in the market for Labor. Only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[danielpalos]

Right wingers only have right wing fantasy not any economic common sense.

ROFLMAO! Nominated for dumbass post of the year! It goes against the grain to denigrate someone else's post, but this is too outrageous to ignore. For a Lefty to say that right wingers have no economic sense is beyond ridiculous, not to mention super hypocrisy. The laws of supply and demand relative to cost are not a right wing fantasy, it is the basis for all economic thought that is based on reality. You cannot just substantially increase the cost of something (such as labor) without a corresponding consequence.

LOL. Yes, it is termed and styled, a positive multiplier effect in Any long run equilibrium.

Which is left wing gobbledegook that essentially is bullshit. The reality is that when costs such as labor go up then prices go up too, so there really isn't an increase in overall demand. Oh sure, the employees that get a raise is is helped unless of course his/her hours are reduced. Which does happen, no gain there, right? Or his hours are not cut, but his benefits are so his compensation remains about the same. Or the employer reduces the number of employees. 10 guys get more wages but 2 guys are out of a job, where's the increase in overall demand then? Or if it's small business the owner isn't getting the ROI after the rise in labor costs so he say fuck it and closes his business and puts his money elsewhere. You think that doesn't happen? Now all 10 employees are out of a job, how is overall demand looking now?

If the employer can afford to, he automates jobs. Resullt? Fewer jobs. And it is the small businesses that primarily get hurt because higher costs make them unable to compete with the larger companies and they can't afford to automate. You do know who is in favor of raising the minimum wage, right? The big corps, cuz you've reduced their local competition everywhere. They don't care, they can automate, or shift jobs to Mexico. When you raise the m-wage, it's the little guys that get fucked.

Somebody still has to do the Labor.

And, paying persons fifteen dollars an hour generates around five times more in federal (income) tax revenue than someone making the current minimum wage.

 

[danielpalos]

“Raise the Wage Act”, (H.R. 582) would have increased most USA’s wage-earning families’ incomes.

The last minimum wage bill that was proposed and considered in congress, was H.R. 258, “Raise the Wage Act”. It was passed by the Democratic majority house, then passed on to the Republican majority senate, (where it now lies effectively dead).
Refer to the Congressional Budget office’s, (i.e. CBO’s) minimum wage rate report,
How Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage Could Affect Employment and Family Income | Congressional Budget Office, and follow the link’s instructions to obtain the HR 258 interactive graphs.

Referring to the graph entitled “Average Percentage Change in Real Family Income, by Income Group”: The graph indicates average incomes of families earning less than 3 times the poverty threshold increase. Average incomes of higher income families do not perceivably begin to decrease until those incomes achieve 6 more times the poverty threshold;

(i.e. CBO’s study confirms minimum wage rate’s beneficial effects upon job’s rates are inversely related. Employees within the lowest wage rate brackets most benefit in proportion to their incomes, and those benefits (proportional to incomes) are incrementally lesser as incomes increase. Thus, the wage incomes of most USA’s wage earners would have benefit or would not be detrimentally affected by passage of H.R. 582.

[Six, (6) times a family of three’s income equal or exceeding 6 times the poverty threshold would be $122,000 per year and for a family of four it would well exceed $125,00 per year expressed in 2018 U.S. dollars.]
Respectfully, Supposn

/—-/ Hey let’s set minimum wage at $120,000 a year. Then everybody gets rich.

I was surprised when Wal Mart raised wages, and forced everyone else to compete with those wages, that inflation did not rise at all. I believed the argument that you couldn't address lower end wages without making prices go through the roof, but that is proven not to be true. I don't like artificial wage tinkering like Seattle and leftists cities, and going against market forces, and worry about people getting fired and job losses, like Seattle. However, It is still evident that lower wages can rise without runaway inflation. Either the experts were wrong, or they lied.

Raising the Minimum wage has never been an inflationary concern. It only affects the microeconomic, bottom line for employers not our economy.

 

[danielpalos]

“Raise the Wage Act”, (H.R. 582) would have increased most USA’s wage-earning families’ incomes.

The last minimum wage bill that was proposed and considered in congress, was H.R. 258, “Raise the Wage Act”. It was passed by the Democratic majority house, then passed on to the Republican majority senate, (where it now lies effectively dead).
Refer to the Congressional Budget office’s, (i.e. CBO’s) minimum wage rate report,
How Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage Could Affect Employment and Family Income | Congressional Budget Office, and follow the link’s instructions to obtain the HR 258 interactive graphs.

Referring to the graph entitled “Average Percentage Change in Real Family Income, by Income Group”: The graph indicates average incomes of families earning less than 3 times the poverty threshold increase. Average incomes of higher income families do not perceivably begin to decrease until those incomes achieve 6 more times the poverty threshold;

(i.e. CBO’s study confirms minimum wage rate’s beneficial effects upon job’s rates are inversely related. Employees within the lowest wage rate brackets most benefit in proportion to their incomes, and those benefits (proportional to incomes) are incrementally lesser as incomes increase. Thus, the wage incomes of most USA’s wage earners would have benefit or would not be detrimentally affected by passage of H.R. 582.

[Six, (6) times a family of three’s income equal or exceeding 6 times the poverty threshold would be $122,000 per year and for a family of four it would well exceed $125,00 per year expressed in 2018 U.S. dollars.]
Respectfully, Supposn

/—-/ Hey let’s set minimum wage at $120,000 a year. Then everybody gets rich.

I was surprised when Wal Mart raised wages, and forced everyone else to compete with those wages, that inflation did not rise at all. I believed the argument that you couldn't address lower end wages without making prices go through the roof, but that is proven not to be true. I don't like artificial wage tinkering like Seattle and leftists cities, and going against market forces, and worry about people getting fired and job losses, like Seattle. However, It is still evident that lower wages can rise without runaway inflation. Either the experts were wrong, or they lied.

/----/ The money had to come from somewhere. Perhaps they cut cost in other departments.

More people having more money to spend at the store; what a capital concept.