U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 07-29-2020, 09:25 PM
 
Location: Bangkok
11,964 posts, read 6,215,951 times
Reputation: 21024

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
To the extent of its purchasing power, the federal minimum wage rate reduces incidences and extents of poverty among USA’s working-poor.
Can you quantify this?

According to BLS only 2.3% of workers earn minimum wage, but if you take out people under 25 (the ones most likely to be in school or still living with parents) it drops to 1%. Compared to higher paid workers, min wage workers are more likely to be single with no children, and more likely to be working part time.

How much "incidences" of poverty does the minimum wage reduce? Sure you could stand there shouting that even one makes it all worth it, but I'm genuinely curious if you have any idea whether changes to minimum wage would move the needle on poverty rate any appreciable amount.
Rate this post positively

 
Old 07-30-2020, 12:47 AM
 
2,832 posts, read 886,425 times
Reputation: 3160
Quote:
Originally Posted by crusinsusan View Post
It shouldn't even be a question. Every adult human being working full time should be able to live on a wage. So yes. A fair minimum wage should be a human right. Simple. Only the stupid and cruel think otherwise.
hire the dregs of society, pay them a living wage and see how that works out for you.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 07-30-2020, 01:34 AM
 
1,830 posts, read 1,125,433 times
Reputation: 553
Lieqiang, what’s the point of your comment, “According to BLS only 2.3% of workers earn minimum wage, but if you take out people under 25 (the ones most likely to be in school or still living with parents) it drops to 1%”.

You do not agree no less than half of all USA employees’ earnings are derived from rates within the lower wage brackets, (i.e. rates no greater than USA’s median wage rate)? Or are you do not agree no less than half of all USA full-time employees’ earnings are derived from rates within the lower wage brackets of full-time employees?
Do you doubt the federal minimum wage rate’s influence upon all of USA’s lower bracket wage rates?

You do not believe that if supervisors’ crew receive substantial wage increases, the employer would have some problems if they didn’t similarly reward the supervisors? Do you not agree that wage differentials are driven up from the lower rates rather than down from the higher rates? If a hospital’s cleaning ladies and janitors all received 300% wage increases, wouldn’t the hospitals be driven to increase their surgeon’s compensations? Do you believe if hospitals substantially increased their surgeons’ compensations, they be similarly driven to increase their janitors’ wage rates?

I’ve made my opinions and the consequences of my reasoning somewhat clear. Now you show me yours.
Respectfully, Supposn
Rate this post positively
 
Old 07-30-2020, 01:35 AM
 
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
9,613 posts, read 7,283,866 times
Reputation: 14983
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy View Post
It's actually less than that - about 2% of hourly-paid workers, per BLS.



I wouldn't call a minimum-wage McDonald's job in Beverly Hills 'giving away' opportunity.
You do realize that the minimum wage would be raised significantly to accommodate the higher col town, right?
Instead of 40k a year At McDonald’s in Arkansas it could be 85k a year in Beverly Hills
Rate this post positively
 
Old 07-30-2020, 01:53 AM
 
1,488 posts, read 1,831,139 times
Reputation: 3244
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDS_ View Post
That's horrible analysis top to bottom. Sticking to one area tho.......maintaining a functioning banking system is nothing short of a national security issue. Society would revert to a 1750s like food search/scavenging based economy in a couple months. The minimum wage impacts a thin slice of our adult population who also have access to myriad direct and in-kind benefits.

Another way to think about this is if banking went away or reverted to a disjointed ad hoc system as we had pre-Great Depression so many businesses would fail there would be few entities left to pay any wage.
Yeah it sure is a "horrible analysis" on my part if you are biased and not looking at the situation objectively. I read from your other post that you are an economist so based on that here are two points:

1. There are many ways to keep our financial system from collapsing to the doomsday scenario you describe that does not involve bailing out the failing banks. As an economist you should be able to figure out those scenarios since they are quite obvious.

2. The 400+ billion used by the government to bail out those businesses could have been used much more efficiently to result in exponentially more benefit to the country and the individual citizens as a whole. The only reason it wasn't is corruption.

3. I see you conveniently did not address the blatant misuse of the money given to the banks from the bailout. That was kind of the whole point of my post. You did not address it because your whole response above becomes completely irrelevant with that point added on.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 07-30-2020, 02:06 AM
 
16,325 posts, read 14,775,952 times
Reputation: 14714
Quote:
Originally Posted by griffon652 View Post
Yeah it sure is a "horrible analysis" on my part if you are biased and not looking at the situation objectively. I read from your other post that you are an economist so based on that here are two points:

1. There are many ways to keep our financial system from collapsing to the doomsday scenario you describe that does not involve bailing out the failing banks. As an economist you should be able to figure out those scenarios since they are quite obvious.

2. The 400+ billion used by the government to bail out those businesses could have been used much more efficiently to result in exponentially more benefit to the country and the individual citizens as a whole. The only reason it wasn't is corruption.

3. I see you conveniently did not address the blatant misuse of the money given to the banks from the bailout. That was kind of the whole point of my post. You did not address it because your whole response above becomes completely irrelevant with that point added on.
1. Name one that would actually work.

2. How?

3. What misuse?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 07-30-2020, 02:06 AM
 
Location: NNV
3,433 posts, read 3,111,856 times
Reputation: 6703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Lieqiang, what’s the point of your comment, “According to BLS only 2.3% of workers earn minimum wage, but if you take out people under 25 (the ones most likely to be in school or still living with parents) it drops to 1%”.

You do not agree no less than half of all USA employees’ earnings are derived from rates within the lower wage brackets, (i.e. rates no greater than USA’s median wage rate)? Or are you do not agree no less than half of all USA full-time employees’ earnings are derived from rates within the lower wage brackets of full-time employees?
Do you doubt the federal minimum wage rate’s influence upon all of USA’s lower bracket wage rates?

You do not believe that if supervisors’ crew receive substantial wage increases, the employer would have some problems if they didn’t similarly reward the supervisors? Do you not agree that wage differentials are driven up from the lower rates rather than down from the higher rates? If a hospital’s cleaning ladies and janitors all received 300% wage increases, wouldn’t the hospitals be driven to increase their surgeon’s compensations? Do you believe if hospitals substantially increased their surgeons’ compensations, they be similarly driven to increase their janitors’ wage rates?

I’ve made my opinions and the consequences of my reasoning somewhat clear. Now you show me yours.
Respectfully, Supposn
I have read every one of your posts in this thread. I am convinced that:

1. You do not live in the United States.
2. You are in way over your head with this subject matter.
3. You're trying to sound well educated but are doing a bad job of it.

Please stop while you are behind. Respectfully Vic Romano.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 07-30-2020, 02:16 AM
 
8,728 posts, read 6,769,184 times
Reputation: 12581
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57 View Post
From 1938-1969, the federal minimum wage got raised about once every 4 years.

From 1970-81, it was raised every year.

Starting in the 1980s, it only got raised about every 8-10 years.

We are now going on 13 years since the last vote in congress to raise the minimum wage, 11 years since the last of the 2007 increase went into effect. That is a function of political gridlock and stupidity. It will soon be 14 years.

More than half the states have already raised theirs. There are only 21 states that still have $7.25. In most of those, I'd wager the effective minimum wage rate is more like $10 and very few workers actually make $7.25

Assuming Democrats take the presidency and Senate, it will will get raised probably to $11-12 or thereabouts.
The Democrats did not raise it last time, so what makes you think they will this time?

At that, it should be left of to states and local governments. A wage in one place is not the same as in another due to COL.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 07-30-2020, 02:17 AM
 
8,728 posts, read 6,769,184 times
Reputation: 12581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Lieqiang, what’s the point of your comment, “According to BLS only 2.3% of workers earn minimum wage, but if you take out people under 25 (the ones most likely to be in school or still living with parents) it drops to 1%”.

You do not agree no less than half of all USA employees’ earnings are derived from rates within the lower wage brackets, (i.e. rates no greater than USA’s median wage rate)? Or are you do not agree no less than half of all USA full-time employees’ earnings are derived from rates within the lower wage brackets of full-time employees?
Do you doubt the federal minimum wage rate’s influence upon all of USA’s lower bracket wage rates?

You do not believe that if supervisors’ crew receive substantial wage increases, the employer would have some problems if they didn’t similarly reward the supervisors? Do you not agree that wage differentials are driven up from the lower rates rather than down from the higher rates? If a hospital’s cleaning ladies and janitors all received 300% wage increases, wouldn’t the hospitals be driven to increase their surgeon’s compensations? Do you believe if hospitals substantially increased their surgeons’ compensations, they be similarly driven to increase their janitors’ wage rates?

I’ve made my opinions and the consequences of my reasoning somewhat clear. Now you show me yours.
Respectfully, Supposn
I will go with another poster; you really have no idea what you are talking about.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 07-30-2020, 03:01 AM
 
1,830 posts, read 1,125,433 times
Reputation: 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang View Post
Can you quantify this? ... How much "incidences" of poverty does the minimum wage reduce? Sure you could stand there shouting that even one makes it all worth it, but I'm genuinely curious if you have any idea whether changes to minimum wage would move the needle on poverty rate any appreciable amount.
Lieqiang, refer to https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55681 ;

Click on “Raise the Wage Act, as passed”; HR582, was passed by the Democratic House of Representatives on July 18,2019. It there after laying dead in the Republican Senate.

Refer to the interactive chart “Change in the Number of People in Poverty”.

The U.S. Congressional Budget Office estimated that if HR582 had been passed, by the year 2026, the poverty segment of USA’s population would be reduced by 12 million people, and they further estimated that reduction would hold steady until 2029. They didn’t do any studies beyond 2029.

Respectfully, Supposn
Rate this post positively
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:07 AM.

© 2005-2023, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top