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.
... I believe instead that we should EMPOWER adults (that's your type of language is it not?) to be economically productive with real skills and abilities rather than have the government devise ways which enable them to linger in low-wage jobs where they neither have to advance themselves or advance society.
RayHammer, any improvement of a nation’s educational or training systems, will be reflected by no lesser improvement of the nation’s economic and social wellbeing. But even a nation with superior educational or training systems will benefit from a reasonably high minimum wage rate annually monitored and adjusted to retain its purchasing power. Respectfully, Supposn
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 minimum wage should have been raised 7 years ago to $15 / hr.
Now it should be raised to $20. The only ones that are making a fuss against minimum wage are globalists that want to push wages down to match the slave wages like in Communist China and other slave labor countries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn:
TaxPhD, if a task’s worth to an employer is only $5/Hr. within the jurisdiction of a legal reasonably enforced $7.25/Hr., the employer doesn’t hire anyone to perform the task. Obviously if an employer pays $7.25 or more to have the task done, we can logically presume the task’s worth to the employer is no less than $7.25/Hr.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
The worth to an employer and the market determined wage aren’t necessarily the same thing. Sorry, but you fail again.
TaxPhd we agree, worth to an employer and the market determined employees' wage rate or the employee's tasks may, and often do differ.
What's the point of your post? Respectfully, Supposn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn:
TaxPhD, if a task’s worth to an employer is only $5/Hr. within the jurisdiction of a legal reasonably enforced $7.25/Hr., the employer doesn’t hire anyone to perform the task. Obviously if an employer pays $7.25 or more to have the task done, we can logically presume the task’s worth to the employer is no less than $7.25/Hr.
TaxPhd we agree, worth to an employer and the market determined employees' wage rate or the employee's tasks may, and often do differ.
What's the point of your post? Respectfully, Supposn
The point? Simple. To point out to you that you confused “worth to an employer” with “market determined wage,” and also to note that in your confusion, you in no way addressed my post that you quoted.
State/Local gov't can set their local minimum wage as high as they feel is necessary. Federalism in action
If a higher minimum wage is necessary in certain high-cost-of-living areas, let state/county/city government set their minimum wage at or above the regional living wage, if they so choose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J746NEW
The only ones that are making a fuss against minimum wage are globalists that want to push wages down to match the slave wages like in Communist China and other slave labor countries.
Who are these strawmen you keep citing who are making a fuss against minimum wage? What I see is opposition to drastically hiking the Federal minimum, not a generalized sentiment against the basic concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J746NEW
The minimum wage should have been raised 7 years ago to $15 / hr.
Now it should be raised to $20.
DDeemo, I don’t suppose any person to the extent of their knowledge, cognoscente and quality of their judgement, would always be pleased by what the Congressional Budget Office reports.
But “they don’t understand the economics”? Would you consider walking that comment back a little? Are you presuming your expertise regarding this topic is so greatly superior to the CBO’s economists and statisticians?
I suppose you’re quoting something you read. If you’re quoting from a CBO report, I have reason to believe you’re quoting something out of context. In previous posts I’ve cited the specific lines from the CBO report I believe you’re referring to. That are contrary to what you’re contending.
Only if you provide the page numbers of your CBO quotes, can we reasonably discuss those quotes. Otherwise what you’re arguing are your own less substantiated opinions.
Your argument is regarding less jobs? Are employees’ annual incomes and wage rates of lesser importance than the numbers of people employed each week? There’s more than a single attribute that determines a job’s value. If a job pays less, it’s of lesser worth.
Respectfully, Supposn
////////////////////////////////////
Excerpted from: https://www.cbo.gov/about/overview
Since 1975, CBO has produced independent analyses of budgetary and economic issues to support the Congressional budget process. Each year, the agency’s economists and budget analysts produce dozens of reports and hundreds of cost estimates for proposed legislation.
CBO is strictly nonpartisan; conducts objective, impartial analysis; and hires its employees solely based on professional competence without regard to political affiliation. CBO does not make policy recommendations, and each report and cost estimate summarizes the methodology underlying the analysis. Learn more about CBO's commitment to objectivity and transparency.
Effects of the $15 Option on Employment and Income.
According to CBO’s median estimate, under the $15 option, 1.3 million workers who would otherwise be employed would be jobless.
Page 2
Quote:
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.
BTW - I have produced data and reports for the CBO - I know a bit about it - I also know some of the inner working.
... Who are these strawmen you keep citing who are making a fuss against minimum wage? What I see is opposition to drastically hiking the Federal minimum, not a generalized sentiment against the basic concept. ...
Nonesuch, I don’t keep records of every poster expressing in their opinions, there should be no legally mandated minimum wage rate, but I’ve read many such posts.
Additionally, I often read posts with comments that express B.S. such as these excerpts from one recent post to this thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
… If the market wage for a job is $5/hour, but due to FMW the employee is actually paid $7.25, … Any time the FMW is in excess of the market wage … they’re, [i.e. the employers’ are] getting screwed.
This very same poster “doubles down” on his implied contention that many employees within the USA are being paid to perform tasks unworthy of the $7.25 minimum wage rate. He later posted:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
The point? Simple. To point out to you that you confused “worth to an employer” with “market determined wage,” ...
I doubt if there are many employees being paid more than their worth in their labor market, or the employees' tasks worth to their employer's and/or their employer’s enterprises. Respectfully, Supposn
Nonesuch, I don’t keep records of every poster expressing in their opinions, there should be no legally mandated minimum wage rate, but I’ve read many such posts.
Additionally, I often read posts with comments that express B.S. such as these excerpts from one recent post to this thread: This very same poster “doubles down” on his implied contention that many employees within the USA are being paid to perform tasks unworthy of the $7.25 minimum wage rate. He later posted: I doubt if there are many employees being paid more than their worth in their labor market, or the employees' tasks worth to their employer's and/or their employer’s enterprises. Respectfully, Supposn
Two more quotes (with attribution...) Fits Supposn to a "T":
"Obfuscation is the deliberate addition of ambiguous, confusing, or misleading information to interfere with surveillance and data collection". — Finn Brunton
"I've come to learn there is a virtuous cycle to transparency and a very vicious cycle of obfuscation." - Jeff Weiner
The point? Simple. To point out to you that you confused “worth to an employer” with “market determined wage,” and also to note that in your confusion, you in no way addressed my post that you quoted.
TaxPhD, I doubt if there are many employees being paid more than their worth in their labor market, or the employees' tasks worth to their employer's and/or their employer’s enterprises.
Prices are determined by the various factors affecting the markets. The legally mandated minimum wage rates are such a factor. The extent that those minimum rates are enforced is another factor.
Due to those two factors, there are no jobs in the USA that are not worthy of any legally mandated rates applicable to those jobs. If $7.25 is the applicable legally mandated rate, the USA job’s market value cannot be less than that rate.
What are the specific points that I haven't addressed? Respectfully, Supposn
BTW - I have produced data and reports for the CBO - I know a bit about it - I also know some of the inner working.
DDeemo, table 4 of your provided link’s page 15, supports my contentions. Apparently for high earning families, the CBO expects some reduction of their incomes. For a family of three earning a 2025 incomes in excess of $122,800 dollars as valued in 2018, the CBO expects percentages of reductions that do not exceed 1/3 of a percent for the very highest income brackets.
The vast number of USA families are dependent upon their USA wages, and very small portion of USA wage earning families have wage incomes exceeding $122,800 dollars annually. Increases of family incomes due to the minimum wage increase are expected for all families at or below the median family incomes. The CBO estimates those income increases would be 5.3 % for the lowest wage rate brackets, and the percentages of increases are reduced as incomes rise. No wage rates are reduced due to increases of the minimum wage rate.
Your CBO link indicates net economic improvements if H.R. 582 had been passed in the U.S. Senate and had would be enacted. Please elaborate regarding the produced data and reports you produced for the CBO. I'm interested. Respectfully, Supposn
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.
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.
State/Local gov't can set their local minimum wage as high as they feel is necessary. Federalism in action
Why stop at $20 when 
) Fits Supposn to a "T":