Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Higher paid Labor can afford to create more in Demand and pay more in Taxes. It is termed and styled, a positive multiplier effect. The short term is for short run equilibriums not long run equilibriums.Raising the Minimum wage has never been an inflationary concern. It only affects the microeconomic, bottom line for employers not our economy.
It "ONLY" affects the bottom line for employers, NOT our economy.
Oh Grand Economist danielpalos, please explain to all of us how the bottom line of companies does NOT affect our economy.
If the bottom line of any company is reduced, does that not affect the net profit of that company? If that drops, what happens to the stock prices?
Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics, the law, or morals.Right wingers only have right wing fantasy not any economic common sense.I sometimes wonder if he really believes that nonsense or whether he's just screwing with us. Either way, I'm done with him.And, paying persons fifteen dollars an hour generates around five times more in federal (income) tax revenue than someone making the current minimum wage.
You make no sense.
I agree with you 100%.
He reminds me of "Professor" Irwin Corey. A very well known comedian before you were born!
Come up with valid arguments so You won't be full of fallacy. Even promiscuous women are less full of fallacy than You./—-/ Take some business classes so you don’t sound like a blithering idiot.Raising the Minimum wage has never been an inflationary concern. It only affects the microeconomic, bottom line for employers not our economy.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./—-/ Hey let’s set minimum wage at $120,000 a year. Then everybody gets rich.“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
But, it is ok to have QE for the Richest. I get it, right wingers, you all simply prefer to "hate on the Poor" not solve any problems.No it absolutely would not. Just as soon as the minimum wage goes up the printing press is cranked up to negate it. All it does is to effectively pick everyone pocket leaving less for everyone, especially those who supposedly benefit. When in fact they're made even worse off than they were before by the higher prices on everything. Only a compete simple minded fool believes a higher minimum wage benefits anyone.“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
"Privatizing profits and socializing losses" refers to the idea that corporations want to reserve financial gains for themselves and pass along losses to the rest of society, potentially through lobbying the government for assistance. This practice was criticized in the Wall Street bailout of 2008--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare#%22Socialism_for_the_rich,_capitalism_for_the_poor%22/---/ What bailouts for the richest? If you can't supply specifics then stop with the strawman arguments.Then, stop whining about the Poor, right wingers. You don't complain about bailouts for the Richest who are merely too rich to fail and get bailed out by the Nanny-State right wingers are hypocritical about but only for the Poor./----/ It's none of your business how much companies pay their CEOs. If you don't like it, then buy enough company stock so you can attend the meetings and vote down the pay raises.Labor as the wealthy under our form of Capitalism also can't afford to hire lobbyists to get more corporate welfare./——/ If your landscaper said he’d do your lawn for $25, would you say that’s not a living wage and pay him $50?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.
No but if the workers did a good job I very well may tip them. We just had a piano moved. Three guys. I gave them $20 each because they did a great job.
And that was your choice, as it should be. The gov't didn't tell you you had to give them the $20 apiece whether they did a good job or not, did they? But you think that's a good idea, right?
From 1978 to 2018, inflation-adjusted compensation based on realized stock options of the top CEOs increased 940.3%. The increase was more than 25–33% greater than stock market growth (depending on which stock market index is used) and substantially greater than the painfully slow 11.9% growth in a typical worker’s annual compensation over the same period. Measured using the value of stock options granted, CEO compensation rose 1,007.5% from 1978 to 2018.
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
Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in an at-will employment State could solve simple poverty. Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment which means even if persons had to obtain a doctorate to participate in the market for Labor, some would still be unemployed.Toddsterpatriot, the CBO did essentially demonstrate the validity of that concept. Respectfully, Supposn... (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!!!“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.
“Raise the Wage Act”, (H.R. 582) would have increased most USA’s wage-earning families’ incomes.
“Raise the Wage Act”, (H.R. 582) would have increased most USA’s wage-earning families’ incomes.
So would learning a useful skill
/—-/ Not my job to educate you, besides you’ll reject anything I post. You claim raising the minimum wage has never been an inflationary concern. Well here ya go, you uneducated moron: Pros and cons of raising the minimum wage - Economics HelpCome up with valid arguments so You won't be full of fallacy. Even promiscuous women are less full of fallacy than You./—-/ Take some business classes so you don’t sound like a blithering idiot.Raising the Minimum wage has never been an inflationary concern. It only affects the microeconomic, bottom line for employers not our economy.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./—-/ Hey let’s set minimum wage at $120,000 a year. Then everybody gets rich.“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
Spoken like an idiot at the very bottom of the totem pole. Probably a waiter or some such with all the answers.Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in an at-will employment State could solve simple poverty. Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment which means even if persons had to obtain a doctorate to participate in the market for Labor, some would still be unemployed.Toddsterpatriot, the CBO did essentially demonstrate the validity of that concept. Respectfully, Supposn... (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!!!“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.
"Privatizing profits and socializing losses" refers to the idea that corporations want to reserve financial gains for themselves and pass along losses to the rest of society, potentially through lobbying the government for assistance. This practice was criticized in the Wall Street bailout of 2008--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare#%22Socialism_for_the_rich,_capitalism_for_the_poor%22/---/ What bailouts for the richest? If you can't supply specifics then stop with the strawman arguments.Then, stop whining about the Poor, right wingers. You don't complain about bailouts for the Richest who are merely too rich to fail and get bailed out by the Nanny-State right wingers are hypocritical about but only for the Poor./----/ It's none of your business how much companies pay their CEOs. If you don't like it, then buy enough company stock so you can attend the meetings and vote down the pay raises.Labor as the wealthy under our form of Capitalism also can't afford to hire lobbyists to get more corporate welfare./——/ If your landscaper said he’d do your lawn for $25, would you say that’s not a living wage and pay him $50?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.
No but if the workers did a good job I very well may tip them. We just had a piano moved. Three guys. I gave them $20 each because they did a great job.
And that was your choice, as it should be. The gov't didn't tell you you had to give them the $20 apiece whether they did a good job or not, did they? But you think that's a good idea, right?
From 1978 to 2018, inflation-adjusted compensation based on realized stock options of the top CEOs increased 940.3%. The increase was more than 25–33% greater than stock market growth (depending on which stock market index is used) and substantially greater than the painfully slow 11.9% growth in a typical worker’s annual compensation over the same period. Measured using the value of stock options granted, CEO compensation rose 1,007.5% from 1978 to 2018.
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.
The "Wall Street Bailout" was repaid at a profit to the US Treasury. Moron.
“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
"Privatizing profits and socializing losses" refers to the idea that corporations want to reserve financial gains for themselves and pass along losses to the rest of society, potentially through lobbying the government for assistance. This practice was criticized in the Wall Street bailout of 2008--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare#%22Socialism_for_the_rich,_capitalism_for_the_poor%22/---/ What bailouts for the richest? If you can't supply specifics then stop with the strawman arguments.Then, stop whining about the Poor, right wingers. You don't complain about bailouts for the Richest who are merely too rich to fail and get bailed out by the Nanny-State right wingers are hypocritical about but only for the Poor./----/ It's none of your business how much companies pay their CEOs. If you don't like it, then buy enough company stock so you can attend the meetings and vote down the pay raises.Labor as the wealthy under our form of Capitalism also can't afford to hire lobbyists to get more corporate welfare./——/ If your landscaper said he’d do your lawn for $25, would you say that’s not a living wage and pay him $50?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.
No but if the workers did a good job I very well may tip them. We just had a piano moved. Three guys. I gave them $20 each because they did a great job.
And that was your choice, as it should be. The gov't didn't tell you you had to give them the $20 apiece whether they did a good job or not, did they? But you think that's a good idea, right?
From 1978 to 2018, inflation-adjusted compensation based on realized stock options of the top CEOs increased 940.3%. The increase was more than 25–33% greater than stock market growth (depending on which stock market index is used) and substantially greater than the painfully slow 11.9% growth in a typical worker’s annual compensation over the same period. Measured using the value of stock options granted, CEO compensation rose 1,007.5% from 1978 to 2018.
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.
The "Wall Street Bailout" was repaid at a profit to the US Treasury. Moron.
No it wasn't.
Any place worth working for even as a kid offers at least $15 per hour.
The real minimum wage is a rational choice to provide labor input to the economy. Means tested social services cost the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour and is a rational choice reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.The truth about minimum wage...
Higher paid Labor can afford to create more in Demand and pay more in Taxes. It is termed and styled, a positive multiplier effect. The short term is for short run equilibriums not long run equilibriums.Raising the Minimum wage has never been an inflationary concern. It only affects the microeconomic, bottom line for employers not our economy.
It "ONLY" affects the bottom line for employers, NOT our economy.
Oh Grand Economist danielpalos, please explain to all of us how the bottom line of companies does NOT affect our economy.
If the bottom line of any company is reduced, does that not affect the net profit of that company? If that drops, what happens to the stock prices?
www.heritage.org
"Privatizing profits and socializing losses" refers to the idea that corporations want to reserve financial gains for themselves and pass along losses to the rest of society, potentially through lobbying the government for assistance. This practice was criticized in the Wall Street bailout of 2008--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare#%22Socialism_for_the_rich,_capitalism_for_the_poor%22/---/ What bailouts for the richest? If you can't supply specifics then stop with the strawman arguments.Then, stop whining about the Poor, right wingers. You don't complain about bailouts for the Richest who are merely too rich to fail and get bailed out by the Nanny-State right wingers are hypocritical about but only for the Poor./----/ It's none of your business how much companies pay their CEOs. If you don't like it, then buy enough company stock so you can attend the meetings and vote down the pay raises.Labor as the wealthy under our form of Capitalism also can't afford to hire lobbyists to get more corporate welfare./——/ If your landscaper said he’d do your lawn for $25, would you say that’s not a living wage and pay him $50?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.
No but if the workers did a good job I very well may tip them. We just had a piano moved. Three guys. I gave them $20 each because they did a great job.
And that was your choice, as it should be. The gov't didn't tell you you had to give them the $20 apiece whether they did a good job or not, did they? But you think that's a good idea, right?
From 1978 to 2018, inflation-adjusted compensation based on realized stock options of the top CEOs increased 940.3%. The increase was more than 25–33% greater than stock market growth (depending on which stock market index is used) and substantially greater than the painfully slow 11.9% growth in a typical worker’s annual compensation over the same period. Measured using the value of stock options granted, CEO compensation rose 1,007.5% from 1978 to 2018.
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.
The "Wall Street Bailout" was repaid at a profit to the US Treasury. Moron.
No it wasn't.
No it wasn't.
View attachment 381484
Bailout Tracker
ProPublica is still tracking where every dollar of taxpayer money from the 2008 bailout of the financial system has gone. See for yourself.projects.propublica.org
Durr.
Dick Foster, minimum rate’s not among the primary drivers of dollar’s inflation.... Just as soon as the minimum wage goes up the printing press is cranked up to negate it. All it does is to effectively pick everyone pocket leaving less for everyone, especially those who supposedly benefit. When in fact they're made even worse off than they were before by the higher prices on everything. Only a compete simple minded fool believes a higher minimum wage benefits anyone.
We need a rise in the minimum wage but it also must be noted that the Democrats had eight years under Obama and did absolutely nothing in this regard.
