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.
That wasn’t in the article you posted, so are you just making stuff up when reality doesn’t conform to your narrative?
No company is ever going to flat out admit that they don't want to pay their employees anything. But if you understood 1/100th of economics like you claim to understand it, no company wants to pay workers anything. The government makes them do so.
If you want to contest me on this then visit one of those ****hole countries where we outsource work to. They squat in the streets and live in rabbit hutches and are paid pennies on the dollar. Which is a vast improvement since before their governments began to give a ****.
Which is basically to say you fail economics and history.
Not sure how my quote got re-attributed to 2Sleepy?
Red Robin may have gone too far with their headcount reduction (though it positioned them to better weather the Coronavirus shuttering of dining rooms), but many places are doing fine cutting back front-of-house staff by deploying order kiosks, apps, and other automation.
Restaurants are going out of business. Putting that many people out of work kills their customer base.
Quote:
The general trend in grocery and fast food is to replace 4-6 cashiers/baggers with 1-2 highly trained (and highly paid) employees. So for the workers who keep their job, the raise can be substantial, and the job requires substantially more skills (and effort, engagement, etc).
They won't be paid that for long, number one, and these mass firings are why the economy is falling apart.
Also you do know that your implication that wage increases are causing automation is bull****, right? Automation STARTED during the slavery years. It is not dependent in any way on what wages are.
No company is ever going to flat out admit that they don't want to pay their employees anything. But if you understood 1/100th of economics like you claim to understand it, no company wants to pay workers anything. The government makes them do so.
So, if the government didn’t make employers pay employees, the employers wouldn’t pay, and the employees would just be working for free? That is some high level economics knowledge you’re demonstrating right there. . .
Quote:
If you want to contest me on this then visit one of those ****hole countries where we outsource work to. They squat in the streets and live in rabbit hutches and are paid pennies on the dollar. Which is a vast improvement since before their governments began to give a ****.
Which is basically to say you fail economics and history.
I’ve traveled to the worlds ****holes in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. I’ve lived for YEARS in unimaginable squalor that you couldn’t even begin to understand. And you know what? None of that has anything to do with the fact that you chose to just make stuff up to fit your narrative, when the reality just didn’t work for you.
Perhaps you should go back to job hunting, as you’re failing miserably at keeping up with internet discussions on topics that are apparently way above your pay grade.
from CBO: Folks are welcome to spin that how they wish, but let's not pretend CBO only summarized a $15 mw as having a net positive benefit.
Lieqiang, refer to https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/201...umWage2019.pdf .
Table 1 on page 3, and table 4 on page 15 of the CBO report supports everything that I’ve posted in regard to CBO’s evaluation of H.R. 582, Raise the Wage Act. Respectfully, Supposn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
ddeemo, I’ve browsed the CBO report,
( https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/201...umWage2019.pdf ), that paint a substantially different picture than that the few selected sentences or paragraphs posted to this discussion thread by opponents of the minimum wage rate.
I have not found the CBO passage your post mentioned, describing federal minimum wage rate increases that would eventually reach 125% of the rate’s February – 1968 peak purchasing power, would as you posted, “adversely impact MW workers, causing significant job loss and contract the economy”.
The CBO estimated due to the minimum rates increases, the in 2025 the purchasing powers of wage-earning families within the lowest income brackets would be increased by 5.3% more than otherwise and 1.3 million more people than otherwise would be lifted out of poverty.
The benefits due to minimum rate increases are inversely related to the families’ wage incomes. The CBO estimated 2025 benefits due to the minimum rates increases would increase purchasing powers of families earning the equivalent of $61,400 in 2018 by little more than a ½ percent.
The CBO also estimates that the purchasing powers of families earning 6 times or more than the federal poverty level, (i.e. the equivalent of $122,800 or more in 2018 dollars), would be reduced by as much a 1/3 of a percent.
All these Congressional Budget office’s estimates were gleaned from pages 2, 3, and 15 of the report. I certainly have not found what you perceive to be CBO’s contention of the Congressional House’s last passed minimum wage act would net adversely impact lower wage earners or be net detrimental to our economy. ...
Restaurants are going out of business. Putting that many people out of work kills their customer base.
They won't be paid that for long, number one, and these mass firings are why the economy is falling apart.
Also you do know that your implication that wage increases are causing automation is bull****, right? Automation STARTED during the slavery years. It is not dependent in any way on what wages are.
ROTFL!!
Given that slaves weren’t paid, is it your contention that having slaves was “free” and cost nothing?
Having/maintaining slave labor was actually pretty expensive, and it is the overall cost of labor, not just wages, that was, and is, one of the driving factors of automation.
I would suggest some additional education in history, economics, and business. It might save you a bit of further embarrassment.
Lieqiang, refer to https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/201...umWage2019.pdf .
Table 1 on page 3, and table 4 on page 15 of the CBO report supports everything that I’ve posted in regard to CBO’s evaluation of H.R. 582, Raise the Wage Act. Respectfully, Supposn
Read page 2 of the CBO report. Supports everything we've posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Romano
This is on page 2 of the CBO report. I don't see how you can interpret this as "net economic improvements"...I would like to hear your explanation.
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
1. That dollar amount and others in this report are expressed in
2018 dollars, unless otherwise indicated.
Last edited by Vic Romano; 08-13-2020 at 11:25 PM..
ddeemo, excluding whatever your posts quote from the second page of the Congressional Budget Office, (i.e. CBO) report, ( https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/201...umWage2019.pdf ) , you didn’t provide even the page numbers of your remaining quotes. I don’t have the available software to find those quotes within the report. I did not doubt your veracity, but I prefer to read quotes within their context.
I have finally located some, (not all) of your quotes regarding the $15 option. Their texts are broken up by tables and figures that are consolidations to include the $10, $12, and $15 options the $15 option discussion does not, (as you paint it), describe that proposed minimum rate increase as “adversely impact MW workers, causing significant job loss and contract the economy”.
For example, you quoted “Many low-wage workers are in families with high incomes—for instance, some low-wage workers are teenagers in high-income families. In particular, about 40 percent of low-wage workers are in families with income three times the poverty level”. [Note: In 2018, families of 3 with entire incomes 3 or more times the federal poverty level were in excess of $61,800].
Those sentences disregard the proportion of lower pay rate employees working much more in excess of 35 hours per week and often for two or more employers, because their families are dependent upon those lower rate wage rates. The statistic lumps all low-wage workers together.
... Also what is really telling is Figure 6 - this raise of FMW is really inefficient. Figure 6 shows that there are more low wage workers in families that are above 6x poverty than below poverty. It shows that 85% of low wage earners are above poverty line, 65% are above 2x poverty and 40% are above 3x poverty. As a matter of fact, every group has more low wage earners than the group below poverty.
If the goal is getting those in poverty out of poverty without the larger negative impacts on everyone else, raising the FMW is NOT the way to fix this issue. The best way to do this is to grow the economy, growing the economy will raise wages naturally as employers compete for employees.
ddeemo, no; figure 6 indicates approximately 1/3 of USA ‘s wage earners are from families of entire incomes 6 or more times the federal poverty level. [Note in 2018, for a family of 3, 6 times the the poverty threshold was in excess of f $122,400. I do not speculate if that’s only their incomes derived from wages or includes other sources of incomes.]
That graph indicates less than 15% of all USA’s employees are low wage earners who are members of such families.
You’ve interpreted the graph incorrectly. Respectfully, Supposn
ddeemo, I’ve browsed the CBO report, ( https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/201...umWage2019.pdf ), that paint a substantially different picture than that the few selected sentences or paragraphs posted to this discussion thread by opponents of the minimum wage rate.
I have not found the CBO passage your post mentioned, describing federal minimum wage rate increases that would eventually reach 125% of the rate’s February – 1968 peak purchasing power, would as you posted, “adversely impact MW workers, causing significant job loss and contract the economy”.
The CBO estimated due to the minimum rates increases, the in 2025 the purchasing powers of wage-earning families within the lowest income brackets would be increased by 5.3% more than otherwise and 1.3 million more people than otherwise would be lifted out of poverty.
The benefits due to minimum rate increases are inversely related to the families’ wage incomes. The CBO estimated 2025 benefits due to the minimum rates increases would increase purchasing powers of families earning the equivalent of $61,400 in 2018 by little more than a ½ percent.
The CBO also estimates that the purchasing powers of families earning 6 times or more than the federal poverty level, (i.e. the equivalent of $122,800 or more in 2018 dollars), would be reduced by as much a 1/3 of a percent.
All these Congressional Budget office’s estimates were gleaned from pages 2, 3, and 15 of the report. I certainly have not found what you perceive to be CBO’s contention of the Congressional House’s last passed minimum wage act would net adversely impact lower wage earners or be net detrimental to our economy Respectfully, Supposn
It has been explained several times - you only see the positive but ignore the negatives. The whole 125% of 1968 peak is from your posts - not in any of mine. The CBO min wage report did not directly analyze the HR bill but the CBO report does show that the overall result is Negative for a $15 MW which is similar.
I also already referenced/ linked an interactive publication that did directly address the HR bill and had basic graphs - from that publication it shows the HR bills impact of about 1.1M move out of poverty but it is offset by about 0.3M moving into poverty and overall impact is 1.2M job loss and overall reduced economy - https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55410 maybe one line in that pub will help;
Quote:
By boosting the income of low-wage workers who keep their jobs, a higher minimum wage raises their families’ real income, lifting some of those families out of poverty. However, income falls for some families because other workers lose their jobs and business owners must absorb at least some of the higher costs of labor. For those reasons, the net effect of a minimum-wage increase is to reduce average family income.
Local variation of MW allows wages to be higher where supported by the economy and lower where not.
According to CBO and Economists studying the issue, increasing FMW too much will adversely impact MW workers, causing significant job loss and contract the economy. Too much increase was seen in Seattle, not a cheap place, where the MW increase to $12 and eventually $14 caused many workers to lose hours that was not offset by wage increases. The UW study said “reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by 6-7 percent, while hourly wages in such jobs increased by 3 percent ... consequently, total payroll for such jobs decreased.”
“The restaurant industry moans and groans about minimum wage increase, but the Seattle newspaper every month has a story about 40 new restaurants opening,” said Jennifer Romich, a University of Washington social policy researcher."
"Those who were already working more hours before the wage increase saw “essentially all of the earnings increases,” while the workers who had fewer hours saw their hours go down, but wages go up enough so that their overall earnings didn’t really change."
Last edited by NJ Brazen_3133; 08-14-2020 at 10:20 AM..
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.
