The next minimum wage rate bill

... What was the largest increase in family incomes from more than doubling minimum wage?
Was it 5.3%? Was it about $600? Not much of an increase in income considering the jump from $7.25 to $15. ...
Toddsterpatriot yes, 5.3% and $600 was the NET GAIN after wages replaced non-wage incomes such as public assistance and unemployment insurance benefits. ...
A net income reduction of 1/3 of the highest income families as a trade-off for:
net increased wage rates among USA’s wage earners and the wages of their families and reductions of their incidences and extents of poverty,


Don't forget, 1.3 million fewer jobs, lower income for business owners and higher prices [lower real wages] for everyone.
ToddsterPatriot, referring to How Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage Could Affect Employment and Family Income | Congressional Budget Office (cbo.gov) How Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage Could Affect Employment and Family Income | Congressional Budget Office (cbo.gov) , “Raise the Wage Act, as passed” option, graph of “Average Percentage Change in Real Family Income, by Income Group”:
The graph indicates only 2025 highest income families are projected to experience any net reductions of real family total incomes (rather total wages. Those incomes are reduced by less than 1/5 of a percent. All other family total incomes are increased or materially unaffected.

Respectfully, Supposn

The graph indicates only 2025 highest income families are projected to experience any net reductions of real family total incomes

And ALL families will see inflation reducing their earnings more than they would have otherwise been reduced.
 
The graph indicates only 2025 highest income families are projected to experience any net reductions of real family total incomes

And ALL families will see inflation reducing their earnings more than they would have otherwise been reduced.
ToddsterPatriot, quite the opposite. Every increase of the federal minimum wage rate consequently increased the purchasing pawer for no less than ALL USA employees earning rates within the lowest fifth bracket of all USA wage rates, and additionally ALL USA employees within the lowest fifth bracket of all USA employees’ earnings.

Later inflation of the U.S. dollar occurs regardless of minimum rate’s modifications. Respectfully, Supposn
 
The graph indicates only 2025 highest income families are projected to experience any net reductions of real family total incomes

And ALL families will see inflation reducing their earnings more than they would have otherwise been reduced.
ToddsterPatriot, quite the opposite. Every increase of the federal minimum wage rate consequently increased the purchasing pawer for no less than ALL USA employees earning rates within the lowest fifth bracket of all USA wage rates, and additionally ALL USA employees within the lowest fifth bracket of all USA employees’ earnings.

Later inflation of the U.S. dollar occurs regardless of minimum rate’s modifications. Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, quite the opposite.

Your CBO source said it.
Are you disagreeing with the CBO?

Allow me to refresh your faulty memory.

1611860295060.png


Let me know if those words are too big.
I'll be happy to try to dumb them down for you.....
 
Your CBO source said it.
Are you disagreeing with the CBO? ... Let me know if those words are too big. I'll be happy to try to dumb them down for you.
ToddsterPatriot, provided with the link to this, your precise CBO publication and page number. I’ll then further point out some of your less than diligent reading and comprehension.
Respectfully, Supposn
 
Not my CBO link, it's yours. Forget already? That's a shame.
ToddsterPatriot, no, it’s not MINE, it’s the CBO’s, and I generally provide links and page numbers when specifically quoting Congressional Budget office’s publications. You’re incapable of doing so?
Respectfully, Supposn
 
ToddsterPatriot, provided with the link to this, your precise CBO publication and page number. I’ll then further point out some of your less than diligent reading and comprehension. …
You've posted it, multiple times. Because you thought it backed up your claims. And each time, I've shown how it disproves your claims. It's very funny.

The Effects on Employment and Family Income of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage (cbo.gov)
ToddsterPatriot, you neglected to include the page number.

If I posted something many times, I assume that I believed it supported my claims. If I did so, at this point I assume it actually does support my claims.
But provide the page number and we may, (or we may not) be able to resolve this particular point of contention between us. Respectfully, Supposn
 
ToddsterPatriot, provided with the link to this, your precise CBO publication and page number. I’ll then further point out some of your less than diligent reading and comprehension. …
You've posted it, multiple times. Because you thought it backed up your claims. And each time, I've shown how it disproves your claims. It's very funny.

The Effects on Employment and Family Income of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage (cbo.gov)
ToddsterPatriot, you neglected to include the page number.

If I posted something many times, I assume that I believed it supported my claims. If I did so, at this point I assume it actually does support my claims.
But provide the page number and we may, (or we may not) be able to resolve this particular point of contention between us. Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, you neglected to include the page number.

You don't know how to search a PDF for a word or phrase? Seriously?

If I posted something many times, I assume that I believed it supported my claims.

You probably did assume that. And then I used it to show you were in error.

But provide the page number and we may, (or we may not) be able to resolve this particular point of contention between us.

Between us? LOL!

You said it was a net benefit. The CBO said it wasn't.

Your contention is with your own CBO link.
 
ToddsterPatriot, you neglected to include the page number.
If I posted something many times, I assume that I believed it supported my claims. If I did so, at this point I assume it actually does support my claims.
But provide the page number and we may, (or we may not) be able to resolve this particular point of contention between us. Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, you neglected to include the page number.
If I posted something many times, I assume that I believed it supported my claims.
But provide the page number and we may, (or we may not) be able to resolve this particular point of contention between us.


Between us? LOL! You said it was a net benefit. The CBO said it wasn't. Your contention is with your own CBO link.
ToddsterPatriot, If That's so, why do you fear posting the link and page number? You fear resolution that reveals the truth? Respectfully, Supposn
 
ToddsterPatriot, you neglected to include the page number.
If I posted something many times, I assume that I believed it supported my claims. If I did so, at this point I assume it actually does support my claims.
But provide the page number and we may, (or we may not) be able to resolve this particular point of contention between us. Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, you neglected to include the page number.
If I posted something many times, I assume that I believed it supported my claims.
But provide the page number and we may, (or we may not) be able to resolve this particular point of contention between us.


Between us? LOL! You said it was a net benefit. The CBO said it wasn't. Your contention is with your own CBO link.
ToddsterPatriot, IF That's so, why do you fear posting the link and page number? You fear resolution that reveals the truth? Respectfully, Supposn

The Effects on Employment and Family Income of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage (cbo.gov)

Page 2.

No whining.
 
Toddsterpatriot, excerpted from page 2 of The Effects on Employment and Family Income of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage (cbo.gov) :

“The $15 option would affect family income in a variety of ways. In CBO’s estimation, it would: • Boost workers’ earnings through higher wages, though some of those higher earnings would be offset by higher rates of joblessness; • Reduce business income and raise prices as higher labor costs were absorbed by business owners and then passed on to consumers; and • Reduce the nation’s output slightly through the reduction in employment and a corresponding decline in the nation’s stock of capital (such as buildings, machines, and technologies). On the basis of those effects and CBO’s estimate of the median effect on employment, the $15 option would reduce total real (inflation-adjusted) family income in 2025 by $9 billion, or 0.1 percent.
(1) That dollar amount and others in this report are expressed in 2018 dollars, (unless otherwise indicated) “.
////////////////////////////

“0.1 percent.1” = 0.001 = 1/1000 th of real (inflation-adjusted) family incomes; That of all rather than only of wage portions of families’ incomes. Purchasing power reductions upon families’ wage incomes would be in aggregate much lesser negligible. CBO’s projections of those reduced purchasing powers would in aggregate, only materially affect USA’s highest earning families.
////////////////////////////

My post is entirely compatible to your selected portion of the Congressional Budget Office’s report regarding the proposed “Raise the Wage” act.
Toddsterpatriot, the U.S. congresses’ that passed, and the presidents that signed off and enacted each of the Fair Lab Practices acts disagreed with you and the U.S. Supreme Courts have upheld those acts constitutionality.

The U.S. Congressional Budget office’s reports’ estimates regarding the proposed “Raise the Wage” act were of net increased wage rates among USA’s wage earners and the wages of their families and reductions of their incidences and extents of poverty. CBO’s projections regarding the proposed “Raise the Wage” act were of
net increased wage rates among USA’s wage earners and the wages of their families. It would not net reduce incomes among any other than the very highest income families, and those reductions would be not be much more than 1/3 of a percent of those famillies’ incomes.

This is not the dismal picture that you perceive, but rather of an act that would be economically and socially net beneficial to our nation. Respectfully, Supposn
 
Toddsterpatriot, excerpted from page 2 of The Effects on Employment and Family Income of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage (cbo.gov) :

“The $15 option would affect family income in a variety of ways. In CBO’s estimation, it would: • Boost workers’ earnings through higher wages, though some of those higher earnings would be offset by higher rates of joblessness; • Reduce business income and raise prices as higher labor costs were absorbed by business owners and then passed on to consumers; and • Reduce the nation’s output slightly through the reduction in employment and a corresponding decline in the nation’s stock of capital (such as buildings, machines, and technologies). On the basis of those effects and CBO’s estimate of the median effect on employment, the $15 option would reduce total real (inflation-adjusted) family income in 2025 by $9 billion, or 0.1 percent.
(1) That dollar amount and others in this report are expressed in 2018 dollars, (unless otherwise indicated) “.
////////////////////////////

“0.1 percent.1” = 0.001 = 1/1000 th of real (inflation-adjusted) family incomes; That of all rather than only of wage portions of families’ incomes. Purchasing power reductions upon families’ wage incomes would be in aggregate much lesser negligible. CBO’s projections of those reduced purchasing powers would in aggregate, only materially affect USA’s highest earning families.
////////////////////////////

My post is entirely compatible to your selected portion of the Congressional Budget Office’s report regarding the proposed “Raise the Wage” act.
Toddsterpatriot, the U.S. congresses’ that passed, and the presidents that signed off and enacted each of the Fair Lab Practices acts disagreed with you and the U.S. Supreme Courts have upheld those acts constitutionality.

The U.S. Congressional Budget office’s reports’ estimates regarding the proposed “Raise the Wage” act were of net increased wage rates among USA’s wage earners and the wages of their families and reductions of their incidences and extents of poverty. CBO’s projections regarding the proposed “Raise the Wage” act were of
net increased wage rates among USA’s wage earners and the wages of their families. It would not net reduce incomes among any other than the very highest income families, and those reductions would be not be much more than 1/3 of a percent of those famillies’ incomes.

This is not the dismal picture that you perceive, but rather of an act that would be economically and socially net beneficial to our nation. Respectfully, Supposn

On the basis of those effects and CBO’s estimate of the median effect on employment, the $15 option would reduce total real (inflation-adjusted) family income in 2025 by $9 billion, or 0.1 percent.


Do you see your error now?

Total family income. That's everybody, rich, poor and middle class combined.
That's a net loss, not a net benefit.

This is not the dismal picture that you perceive, but rather of an act that would be economically and socially net beneficial to our nation


Wrong. Again.

From the same page of the CBO report.

The $15 option would affect family income in a variety of ways. In CBO’s estimation, it would:
• Boost workers’ earnings through higher wages, though some of those higher earnings would be offset by higher rates of joblessness;
Reduce business income and raise prices as higher labor costs were absorbed by business owners and then passed on to consumers; and
Reduce the nation’s output slightly through the reduction in employment and a corresponding decline in the nation’s stock of capital (such as buildings, machines, and technologies).


Higher joblessness, higher prices, it reduces our output (GDP), reduces our capital stock and reduces total real income.

Which of those is your net economic benefit? Which is the net social benefit?
 
... Wrong. Again. ... Which of those is your net economic benefit? Which is the net social benefit?
Toddsterpatriot, the Congressional Budget’s projections for the proposed “Raise the Wage” act entirely differs from yours. Respectfully Supposn
Toddsterpatriot, excerpted from page 2 of The Effects on Employment and Family Income of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage (cbo.gov) : ... On the basis of those effects and CBO’s estimate of the median effect on employment, the $15 option would reduce total real (inflation-adjusted) family income in 2025 by $9 billion, or 0.1 percent.

(1) That dollar amount and others in this report are expressed in 2018 dollars, (unless otherwise indicated) “.
////////////////////////////
“0.1 percent.1” = 0.001 = 1/1000 th of real (inflation-adjusted) family incomes; That of all rather than only of wage portions of families’ incomes. Purchasing power reductions upon families’ wage incomes would be in aggregate much lesser negligible. CBO’s projections of those reduced purchasing powers would in aggregate, only materially affect USA’s highest earning families.
////////////////////////////
My post is entirely compatible to your selected portion of the Congressional Budget Office’s report regarding the proposed “Raise the Wage” act.
... The U.S. Congressional Budget office’s reports’ estimates regarding the proposed “Raise the Wage” act were of net increased wage rates among USA’s wage earners and the wages of their families and reductions of their incidences and extents of poverty. CBO’s projections regarding the proposed “Raise the Wage” act were of net increased wage rates among USA’s wage earners and the wages of their families. It would not net reduce incomes among any other than the very highest income families, and those reductions would be not be much more than 1/3 of a percent of those famillies’ incomes.
This is not the dismal picture that you perceive, but rather of an act that would be economically and socially net beneficial to our nation. Respectfully, Supposn
 
... Wrong. Again. ... Which of those is your net economic benefit? Which is the net social benefit?
Toddsterpatriot, the Congressional Budget’s projections for the proposed “Raise the Wage” act entirely differs from yours. Respectfully Supposn
Toddsterpatriot, excerpted from page 2 of The Effects on Employment and Family Income of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage (cbo.gov) : ... On the basis of those effects and CBO’s estimate of the median effect on employment, the $15 option would reduce total real (inflation-adjusted) family income in 2025 by $9 billion, or 0.1 percent.

(1) That dollar amount and others in this report are expressed in 2018 dollars, (unless otherwise indicated) “.
////////////////////////////
“0.1 percent.1” = 0.001 = 1/1000 th of real (inflation-adjusted) family incomes; That of all rather than only of wage portions of families’ incomes. Purchasing power reductions upon families’ wage incomes would be in aggregate much lesser negligible. CBO’s projections of those reduced purchasing powers would in aggregate, only materially affect USA’s highest earning families.
////////////////////////////
My post is entirely compatible to your selected portion of the Congressional Budget Office’s report regarding the proposed “Raise the Wage” act.
... The U.S. Congressional Budget office’s reports’ estimates regarding the proposed “Raise the Wage” act were of net increased wage rates among USA’s wage earners and the wages of their families and reductions of their incidences and extents of poverty. CBO’s projections regarding the proposed “Raise the Wage” act were of net increased wage rates among USA’s wage earners and the wages of their families. It would not net reduce incomes among any other than the very highest income families, and those reductions would be not be much more than 1/3 of a percent of those famillies’ incomes.
This is not the dismal picture that you perceive, but rather of an act that would be economically and socially net beneficial to our nation. Respectfully, Supposn

Toddsterpatriot, the Congressional Budget’s projections for the proposed “Raise the Wage” act entirely differs from yours. Respectfully Supposn

My projections? LOL!

I'm just repeating what your favorite linked CBO report said.
Do you need me to use smaller words?
You seem more confused than usual.
 
Toddsterpatriot, the Congressional Budget’s projections for the proposed “Raise the Wage” act entirely differs from yours. Respectfully Supposn

My projections? LOL!

I'm just repeating what your favorite linked CBO report said.
Do you need me to use smaller words?
You seem more confused than usual.
Toddsterpatriot, the Congressional Budget’s projections for the proposed “Raise the Wage” act are projections of net social and economic benefit to our nation, rather than the dismal picture that you wish it to be. Respectfully Supposn
 
Last edited:
Toddsterpatriot, the Congressional Budget’s projections for the proposed “Raise the Wage” act entirely differs from yours. Respectfully Supposn

My projections? LOL!

I'm just repeating what your favorite linked CBO report said.
Do you need me to use smaller words?
You seem more confused than usual.
Toddsterpatriot, the Congressional Budget’s projections for the proposed “Raise the Wage” act entirely differs from yours. Respectfully Supposn

I didn't make any projections. I posted the projections of the CBO.
From your link!!
Do I need to walk you through what they claimed, again?
 
I didn't make any projections. I posted the projections of the CBO.
From your link!!
Do I need to walk you through what they claimed, again?
Toddsterpatriot, the Congressional Budget’s projections for the proposed “Raise the Wage” act are projections of net social and economic benefit to our nation, rather than the dismal picture that you wish it to be.
Respectfully Supposn
 
I didn't make any projections. I posted the projections of the CBO.
From your link!!
Do I need to walk you through what they claimed, again?
Toddsterpatriot, the Congressional Budget’s projections for the proposed “Raise the Wage” act are projections of net social and economic benefit to our nation, rather than the dismal picture that you wish it to be.
Respectfully Supposn

The "dismal picture" was me posting from the CBO report that you linked.
 
The "dismal picture" was me posting from the CBO report that you linked.
ToddsterPatriot, referring to How Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage Could Affect Employment and Family Income | Congressional Budget Office (cbo.gov) How Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage Could Affect Employment and Family Income | Congressional Budget Office (cbo.gov) , “Raise the Wage Act, as passed” option, graph of “Average Percentage Change in Real Family Income, by Income Group”:
The graph indicates only 2025 highest income families are projected to experience any net reductions of real family total incomes (rather total wages). Those incomes are reduced by less than 1/5 of a percent. All other family total incomes are increased or materially unaffected. Additionally, the CBO projects a reduction of USA's families at or below their poverty thresholds.

I consider the CBO's projection to be of the act's net improvement to USA's economic and social wellbeing; you believe otherwise. Respectfully, Supposn
 

Forum List

Back
Top