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 agree. This is what happened in black communities too with the disappearance of those lower end jobs that paid decently. They used to be big factory areas. Camden NJ, one of the poorest cities in NJ, in the 60's and 70's had the Philly Navy yard, Campbell Soup, RCA and others. It was a thriving area for small businesses that grew up around those factories. Now there is nothing there for jobs but fast food places.
You keep lamenting the fact that over time, things have changed. This has always happened. Those that improve their human capital, re-train, and seek out other opportunities succeed nicely. Those that whine about how unfair everything is will generally languish in poverty.
I agree. This is what happened in black communities too with the disappearance of those lower end jobs that paid decently. They used to be big factory areas. Camden NJ, one of the poorest cities in NJ, in the 60's and 70's had the Philly Navy yard, Campbell Soup, RCA and others. It was a thriving area for small businesses that grew up around those factories. Now there is nothing there for jobs but fast food places.
Jobs that paid decently but require no qualification have been disappearing for decades as automation is able to fill those needs, train for jobs that exist instead of lamenting jobs that have become obsolete or have moved away.
Why say black communities, doesn't it apply to all of those in lower end jobs - isn't that kind of racist. If jobs are gone, why can't people train for new jobs or move to where jobs that fit their skills exist?
The Philadelphia Navy yard is owned by the city since 2000 and is now home to about 120 businesses employing about 10,000 about as many as were employed there in the 80s - the jobs changed but did not really go away. Campbell soup is still HQ in Camden and employs about 18,000 but most manufacturing moved out of state due to taxes and other costs. RCA went out of business as a independent company years ago - it is now a brand name only that is owned by Sony. Even though Camden is in Philly area, it is in NJ, why doesn't NJ incentivize businesses to bring back jobs to the area - many of the jobs that left were because NJ was taxing them heavily and other locations giving incentives.
I am still waiting on your response about how minimum wager earners lost money when Seattle raised the minimum wage to $15. Or are you going to continue to ignore that fact? https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...um-wage-study/
A ‘very credible’ new study on Seattle’s $15 minimum wage has bad news for liberals
"The costs to low-wage workers in Seattle outweighed the benefits by a ratio of three to one, according to the study, conducted by a group of economists at the University of Washington who were commissioned by the city.
"On the whole, the study estimates, the average low-wage worker in the city lost $125 a month because of the hike in the minimum.
Igor Blevin, I had been responding to posts which falsely allege that the U.S. Congressional Budget Office’s, (i.e. CBO’s) report regarding the congressional house passed “Raise the wage” act, found the proposed increase of the federal minimum wage rate to be net economically detrimental to our nation’s economy.
On the contrary, the CBO report indicates if the act would have been enacted, USA’s population segment of our working -poor, would have been net reduced by more than 1.2 million people and the purchasing powers of most USA’s wage-earning families would be increased due to the increase of the minimum wage rate. The CBO further predicted those gains would have been retained through 2009; (their study did not go beyond 2029).
I have not yet read Washington State University’s published minimum wage rate reports regarding Seattle’s minimum wage rate increases. It takes time to consider the reports, rather than someone’s opinion of what the authors meant to write.
Generally, to some extent our lives are committed to other persons. We prioritize because there’s not time for everything. Respectfully, Supposn
Igor Blevin, I had been responding to posts which falsely allege that the U.S. Congressional Budget Office’s, (i.e. CBO’s) report regarding the congressional house passed “Raise the wage” act, found the proposed increase of the federal minimum wage rate to be net economically detrimental to our nation’s economy.
On the contrary, the CBO report indicates if the act would have been enacted, USA’s population segment of our working -poor, would have been net reduced by more than 1.2 million people and the purchasing powers of most USA’s wage-earning families would be increased due to the increase of the minimum wage rate. The CBO further predicted those gains would have been retained through 2009; (their study did not go beyond 2029).
I have not yet read Washington State University’s published minimum wage rate reports regarding Seattle’s minimum wage rate increases. It takes time to consider the reports, rather than someone’s opinion of what the authors meant to write.
Generally, to some extent our lives are committed to other persons. We prioritize because there’s not time for everything. Respectfully, Supposn
You've said that a couple dozen times already and continue to ignore the CBO's findings. Why are you so stubborn? You focus on that one point and ignore the rest of the report. You've said that in ALL FIVE of your threads.
I am still waiting on your response about how minimum wager earners lost money when Seattle raised the minimum wage to $15. Or are you going to continue to ignore that fact? https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...um-wage-study/ ...
Igor Blevin, I haven't yet read a Universty of Washington's report regarding Seattle's increased minimum wage rate's impact on the city's and its state's economy. I've been more occupied responding to posters' false allegations of what the U.S. Congressional Budget office's reported within their considerations of the U.S. House passed "raise the wage Act".
I do not intend to respond the what someone believes are the contentions or meaning of what a report's authors meant to communicate, unless they're citing and providing a link to a specific published report and the specific passages they're discussing.
Igor Blevin, I haven't yet read a Universty of Washington's report regarding Seattle's increased minimum wage rate's impact on the city's and its state's economy. I've been more occupied responding to posters' false allegations of what the U.S. Congressional Budget office's reported within their considerations of the U.S. House passed "raise the wage Act".
I do not intend to respond the what someone believes are the contentions or meaning of what a report's authors meant to communicate, unless they're citing and providing a link to a specific published report and the specific passages they're discussing.
I await your response. Respectfully, Supposn
The CBO estimates a $15 FMW would take 1.3M out of poverty but also estimates 1.3M jobs would be lost - that is what the report states - that is NOT false. The CBO DOES NOT take positions and DOES NOT make recommendations - they look at the impact of legislation on Federal Budgets. Their job is to do non-partisan budgets for congress, hence the name Congressional Budget Office.
The CBO looks at research to do budgets, their job is not to do the research. The CBO minimum wage report had only 2 paragraphs directly addressing HR 582 in a 52 page report and it was a federal budget estimate. Appendix A & B shows the 50+ studies they used as references and basis for estimates of numbers - specifically table A2 in the study shows how they got the job loss numbers.
I do not await your response because it will be a regurgitation of what you already have posted.
Igor Blevin, I haven't yet read a Universty of Washington's report regarding Seattle's increased minimum wage rate's impact on the city's and its state's economy. I've been more occupied responding to posters' false allegations of what the U.S. Congressional Budget office's reported within their considerations of the U.S. House passed "raise the wage Act".
I do not intend to respond the what someone believes are the contentions or meaning of what a report's authors meant to communicate, unless they're citing and providing a link to a specific published report and the specific passages they're discussing.
I await your response. Respectfully, Supposn
For the nth time, total BS. You are ignoring the University of Washington's report because it conflicts with your opinion. Your methodology is picking and choosing what meets your needs and ignoring everything else. You have been in over your head.
You have been provided a direct link to the .pdf file of the CBO report multiple times. At A Glance is on page one. Either you agree with the conclusion or you do not. It appears you do not agree with their conclusion. Ignoring direct quotes from the CBO report???:
At a Glance
The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour for most workers. The
Congressional Budg of BSet 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.
The two main sources of uncertainty about the changes in employment are
uncertainty about wage growth under current law and uncertainty about the
responsiveness of employment to a wage increase
Page 2 direct quote from 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).
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
Last edited by Vic Romano; 09-05-2020 at 09:01 PM..
The CBO estimates a $15 FMW would take 1.3M out of poverty but also estimates 1.3M jobs would be lost - that is what the report states - that is NOT false. The CBO DOES NOT take positions and DOES NOT make recommendations - they look at the impact of legislation on Federal Budgets. Their job is to do non-partisan budgets for congress, hence the name Congressional Budget Office.
The CBO looks at research to do budgets, their job is not to do the research. The CBO minimum wage report had only 2 paragraphs directly addressing HR 582 in a 52 page report and it was a federal budget estimate. Appendix A & B shows the 50+ studies they used as references and basis for estimates of numbers - specifically table A2 in the study shows how they got the job loss numbers.
I do not await your response because it will be a regurgitation of what you already have posted.
Ddeemo, refer to CBO’s interactive report https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55681 . That report has explicitly provided for the Raise the wage Act option. For the year 2025, and that option the graph entitled “Average Percentage Change in Real Family Income, by Income Group” exactly matches U.S. Congressional Budget office’s publication, “The Effects on Employment and Family Income of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage”, https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/201...umWage2019.pdf
PAGE 3, “TABLE 1, Effects of Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage on Employment, Income, and Poverty, 2025”.
The two publications agree upon the consequences of the $15 per hour rate in 2025, because the old and the new $15 proposal are that similar. The essential difference is the Raise the wage Act annually monitors and retains its purchasing power after it reaches $15 per hour.
Both the referred to table and graph agree with each other and represent the CBO’s considered evaluations. You can’t deal with that truth?
Ddeemo, refer to CBO’s interactive report https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55681 . That report has explicitly provided for the Raise the wage Act option. For the year 2025, and that option the graph entitled “Average Percentage Change in Real Family Income, by Income Group” exactly matches U.S. Congressional Budget office’s publication, “The Effects on Employment and Family Income of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage”, https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/201...umWage2019.pdf
PAGE 3, “TABLE 1, Effects of Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage on Employment, Income, and Poverty, 2025”.
The two publications agree upon the consequences of the $15 per hour rate in 2025, because the old and the new $15 proposal are that similar. The essential difference is the Raise the wage Act annually monitors and retains its purchasing power after it reaches $15 per hour.
Both the referred to table and graph agree with each other and represent the CBO’s considered evaluations. You can’t deal with that truth?
Respectfully Supposn
Sorry but it is you that can't deal with the truth - I was the one that first gave both those links originally - the report summary and charts CLEARLY says 1.3M out of poverty but 1.3M lose their jobs AND the economy has a total loss of almost $9B. You have been quoted the report many times by many posters - the CBO report does not say what you think it does.
I also gave you a survey of several hundred economists, mostly liberal, that disagreed also - on the order of over 90% - that a $15 FMW is not a good idea. There are much better ways to deal with getting people out of poverty yet you are locked onto an idea that experts say and the data available shows will cause much more harm than good.
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.
