Minimum wage is an issue of character.

[Supposn]

Originally Posted by ddeemo

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. ...

ddeemo, it’s unfortunate the CBO did not follow conventional federal practices of including the published date and/or revision dates in this report. The report’s $15 option is essentially very similar, (and I suspect is) the actual house passed $15 proposal, HR 528, “Raise the Wage Act”.
Respectfully, Supposn

[Excerpted from page 1 of
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/201...umWage2019.pdf : The options would raise the minimum wage to $15, $12, and $10, respectively, in six steps between January 1, 2020, and January 1, 2025. Under the $15 option, the minimum wage would then be indexed to median hourly wages; under the $12 and $10 options, it would not.]

On February -1968, the Federal minimum wage rate reached its peak purchasing power when it was increased to $1,60 per hour. ($1.60)(125%) = $2.00 per hour. https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm .
February -1968 $2.00 = December -2018 $14.69 .

[Supposn]

Originally Posted by ddeemo

... 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;

ddeemo, (1) Go o your own link, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55410 .
(2) Click on Use the interactive tool to explore how various policies to increase the federal minimum wage would affect earnings, employment, family income, and poverty.
(3) Click on to “Raise the Wage Act, as passed”
(4) scan page and find the graph entitled “Change in the Number of People in Poverty”

You’ll note by 2025 the NET number of persons arisen from poverty exceed 1.2 million and that statistic’s been retained to 2029. The study doesn’t go beyond 2029.
Respectfully, Supposn

[Vic Romano]

Originally Posted by Supposn

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.

Respectfully, Supposn

You stated you read the CBO report. Your own words contradict that, otherwise you would have known where to look.

Originally Posted by Supposn

I’ve read CBO studies regarding proposed increases of the federal minimum rate. If you want to discuss that, please provide the link to a specific study; preferably the specific CBO paper being quoted within the Forbe’s link you provided.

Respectfully, Supposn

The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour for most workers. The
Congressional Budget Office examined how increasing the federal minimum
wage to $10, $12, or $15 per hour by 2025 would affect employment and
family income.

• In an average week in 2025, the $15 option would boost the wages of
17 million workers who would otherwise earn less than $15 per hour.
Another 10 million workers otherwise earning slightly more than $15
per hour might see their wages rise as well. But 1.3 million other workers
would become jobless, according to CBO’s median estimate. There is a twothirds
chance that the change in employment would be between about zero
and a decrease of 3.7 million workers. The number of people with annual
income below the poverty threshold in 2025 would fall by 1.3 million.

• The $12 option would have smaller effects. In an average week in 2025, it
would increase wages for 5 million workers who would otherwise earn less
than $12 per hour. Another 6 million workers otherwise earning slightly
more than $12 per hour might see their wages rise as well. But the option
would cause 0.3 million other workers to be jobless. There is a two-thirds
chance that the change in employment would be between about zero and a
decrease of 0.8 million workers. The number of people with annual income
below the poverty threshold in 2025 would fall by 0.4 million.

• The $10 option would have still smaller effects. It would raise wages for
1.5 million workers who would otherwise earn less than $10 per hour.
Another 2 million workers who would otherwise earn slightly more than
$10 per hour might see their wages rise as well. The option would have
little effect on employment in an average week in 2025. There is a twothirds
chance that the change in employment would be between about zero
and a decrease of 0.1 million workers. This option would have negligible
effects on the number of people in poverty

So again please explain how there are net economic improvements??? You are obsessed with arguing a specific point and ignoring the overall conclusion. Just because a few people are lifted out of poverty that doesn't result in net economic improvements.

[JobHunter2018]

Originally Posted by Vic Romano

You stated you read the CBO report. Your own words contradict that, otherwise you would have known where to look.



The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour for most workers. The
Congressional Budget Office examined how increasing the federal minimum
wage to $10, $12, or $15 per hour by 2025 would affect employment and
family income.

• In an average week in 2025, the $15 option would boost the wages of
17 million workers who would otherwise earn less than $15 per hour.
Another 10 million workers otherwise earning slightly more than $15
per hour might see their wages rise as well. But 1.3 million other workers
would become jobless, according to CBO’s median estimate. There is a twothirds
chance that the change in employment would be between about zero
and a decrease of 3.7 million workers. The number of people with annual
income below the poverty threshold in 2025 would fall by 1.3 million.

• The $12 option would have smaller effects. In an average week in 2025, it
would increase wages for 5 million workers who would otherwise earn less
than $12 per hour. Another 6 million workers otherwise earning slightly
more than $12 per hour might see their wages rise as well. But the option
would cause 0.3 million other workers to be jobless. There is a two-thirds
chance that the change in employment would be between about zero and a
decrease of 0.8 million workers. The number of people with annual income
below the poverty threshold in 2025 would fall by 0.4 million.

• The $10 option would have still smaller effects. It would raise wages for
1.5 million workers who would otherwise earn less than $10 per hour.
Another 2 million workers who would otherwise earn slightly more than
$10 per hour might see their wages rise as well. The option would have
little effect on employment in an average week in 2025. There is a twothirds
chance that the change in employment would be between about zero
and a decrease of 0.1 million workers. This option would have negligible
effects on the number of people in poverty

So again please explain how there are net economic improvements??? You are obsessed with arguing a specific point and ignoring the overall conclusion. Just because a few people are lifted out of poverty that doesn't result in net economic improvements.

Do you not even think about how many people have to take second jobs at $10 an hour just to pay the rent? You can literally count every second job taken by someone as a job taken away from someone else, which would count as another jobless worker. Which totally distorts every statistic you just posted - in Supposn's favor.

And before you spout the "it's only teenagers taking those jobs" - half the jobs out there pay $15 or less! It doesn't matter how skilled you are, only half the jobs in existence pay better than chicken feed. Half of working America is going to take one OR MORE of those $15 an hour or less jobs or go jobless. That's it! There ain't no more. "Get a better job" FAT CHANCE if someone already has that job, no one's going to just make a new job just for you if too many of you you have a PhD in Engineering, you better get that dude kicked out of his job and take it or go deal drugs or something.

[ddeemo]

Originally Posted by JobHunter2018

Do you not even think about how many people have to take second jobs at $10 an hour just to pay the rent? You can literally count every second job taken by someone as a job taken away from someone else, which would count as another jobless worker. Which totally distorts every statistic you just posted - in Supposn's favor.

And before you spout the "it's only teenagers taking those jobs" - half the jobs out there pay $15 or less! It doesn't matter how skilled you are, only half the jobs in existence pay better than chicken feed. Half of working America is going to take one OR MORE of those $15 an hour or less jobs or go jobless. That's it! There ain't no more. "Get a better job" FAT CHANCE if someone already has that job, no one's going to just make a new job just for you if too many of you you have a PhD in Engineering, you better get that dude kicked out of his job and take it or go deal drugs or something.

Again, way off from reality - the data distortion is done by you guys, ignoring the negatives that the report shows - $15/hr is not the best option. The average income is $957/week from BLS stats - therefore, at full time of 40 hrs, half the wages are $24/hr, not $15.

Low wage workers are not all from low income households - From the CBO report page 15

In particular, about 40 percent of low-wage workers are in families with income three times the poverty level or more

These are not people taking jobs to just pay rent.

[ddeemo]

Originally Posted by Supposn

ddeemo, (1) Go o your own link, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55410 .
(2) Click on Use the interactive tool to explore how various policies to increase the federal minimum wage would affect earnings, employment, family income, and poverty.
(3) Click on to “Raise the Wage Act, as passed”
(4) scan page and find the graph entitled “Change in the Number of People in Poverty”

You’ll note by 2025 the NET number of persons arisen from poverty exceed 1.2 million and that statistic’s been retained to 2029. The study doesn’t go beyond 2029.
Respectfully, Supposn

I GAVE you the link to the data for a reason - I am not trying to hide it. But you are ignoring the bottom line - 1.3 M is only 1 side of the data and ignores the many negatives and ignores the overall summary which I already gave you. If you can't even acknowledge what the summary says, it is not worth trying to educate you.

[Supposn]

Originally Posted by ddeemo

I GAVE you the link to the data for a reason - I am not trying to hide it. But you are ignoring the bottom line - 1.3 M is only 1 side of the data and ignores the many negatives and ignores the overall summary which I already gave you. If you can't even acknowledge what the summary says, it is not worth trying to educate you.

ddeemo, regarding your provided link, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55410 :
If you followed your link’s instructions to obtain the HR 258 interactive graphs, your interpretation of the graph entitled “Change in the Number of People in Poverty” is incorrect.

The red portions of the bars indicate the numbers of our population that would be at or below the poverty level, if H.R. 258 were enacted.
The green portion of the bar indicates the numbers of our population that will be at or below the poverty level, if there is no increase of the minimum wage rate.
The black line Indicates the NET REDUCTION of people at or below the poverty, if HR 258 would have been enacted.

If you’ve clicked on the “Raise the Wage Act, as passed” button and are looking at something else, what are the graph titles or page numbers of paragraphs that you’re looking at? I see no section of your link,
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55410 , entitled “summary”. Respectfully, Supposn

[Vic Romano]

Originally Posted by Supposn

ddeemo, regarding your provided link, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55410 :
If you followed your link’s instructions to obtain the HR 258 interactive graphs, your interpretation of the graph entitled “Change in the Number of People in Poverty” is incorrect.

The red portions of the bars indicate the numbers of our population that would be at or below the poverty level, if H.R. 258 were enacted.
The green portion of the bar indicates the numbers of our population that will be at or below the poverty level, if there is no increase of the minimum wage rate.
The black line Indicates the NET REDUCTION of people at or below the poverty, if HR 258 would have been enacted.

If you’ve clicked on the “Raise the Wage Act, as passed” button and are looking at something else, what are the graph titles or page numbers of paragraphs that you’re looking at? I see no section of your link,
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55410 , entitled “summary”. Respectfully, Supposn

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/201...umWage2019.pdf

Look at "At A Glance" before the table of contents. It states all you need to know. I know you ignore it.

[elnina]

This thread is long enough and going in a circle now.
Closed.