Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 11-24-2020, 02:31 AM
 
1,957 posts, read 1,295,216 times
Reputation: 581

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeemo View Post
The CBO is non-partisan and is tasked with Budget estimates, not policy - from the cbo.gov web site

Again, the CBO report does not condemn or support any bill - only analyze the impact. The CBO estimates that the bill will cause job loss and damage to the economy.
DDeemo, I to believed, and I wish to continue believing that. But yet;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
... The applicable minimum rate directly or (due to employers’ wage differential practices), almost directly affects all lower wage rates, earnings of those rates, and unemployment benefits due to prior earnings of those rates. ...
... Without at very least providing the 2025 projected proportional changes of family’s total incomes derived directly from wages, CBO’s analysis of the proposed “Raise the Wage Act” was not informative, but it also was not the condemnation that opponents of minimum wage rates had hoped for. Possibly the CBO was directed or chose not consider proportions of wages within total incomes and benefits to deliberately less inform our U.S. Congress and the public?
Respectfully, Supposn

 
Old 11-24-2020, 12:48 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,623 posts, read 19,108,889 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Mircea, what’s your complaint? Are you dissatisfied because our U.S. Congresses did not consider the wellbeing of agricultural employees until 1964, or because in 1964 they began to better consider their wellbeing? Respectfully, Supposn
My complaint is that you're Göbbeling (as usual).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Mircea, there’s no need to review what I stipulate to be facts and concepts we agree upon; purchasing powers of the U.S. dollars differ within different marketplaces throughout our nation.
"Our nation?" Are you a card-carrying member of the Chickasaw Tribe? The Miami Tribe?

Those are nations. The United States is not a nation. If you don't understand the difference, then hire a lawyer and sue the school district that issued your high school diploma for not educating you properly.

Show us the Law, Corollary or Theorem in Economics that states "purchasing power" must be equal and uniform throughout any economy.

Cost-of-Living is what you disingenuously refer to as "purchasing power" in an attempt to obfuscate.

Cost-of-Living is a function of Demand-pull Inflation and Cost-push Inflation, and both concepts are beyond your understanding.

People, through their elected officials, are the sole cause of Cost-push Inflation.

For people to okay tax increases and regulations that increase the cost of doing business, and then to demand higher compensation to offset the increased costs people have incurred through higher taxes and higher prices that they demanded is nothing short of absurdity.

Do you not see a problem with voters increasing property taxes and then demanding their employers pay them to off-set the increased property taxes?

Probably not.

Demand-pull Inflation occurs when Demand greatly exceeds both the Supply and the Rate of Increase of Supply.

The function of Demand-pull Inflation is to prevent the over-consumption, over-use and depletion of goods, services and resources.

Thus, to increase wages to match Demand-pull Inflation results in Demand-pull Inflation increasing at higher rates and faster intervals in addition to causing further over-consumption, over-use and depletion of resources.

Example: Increasing wages so that people can "afford" housing does not make housing affordable. It only results in continued increases in housing prices causing them to become unaffordable and those increases start coming months, rather than years and eventually weeks, rather than months.

Congratulations! You failed to solve the problem and you made it worse by exasperating the problem.

You are, no doubt, an Economist Extraordinaire.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Each state can enact and enforce higher minimum rates within their own jurisdictions; but they federal minimum rate limits the extent that a state can undermine the economy of other USA states, by tolerating a lesser than the federal minimum wage rate within their state’s jurisdiction.
No State can undermine the economy of another State.

In addition to the fact that you suck at Economics, you suck at Geography.

There's a reason why Appalachia is poor and down-trodden and it has nothing to do with minimum wages or Economics and everything to do with Geography.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
I‘m among the proponents of that value to be 125% greater than its February-1968 purchasing power.
But, of course, a Göbbler would cherry-pick a single month out of the 984 months that the federal minimum wage has been in effect to argue a baseless point.
 
Old 11-24-2020, 05:32 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas & San Diego
6,913 posts, read 3,341,806 times
Reputation: 8629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
DDeemo, I to believed, and I wish to continue believing that. But yet;
Why repost the same crap - you expect them to take a position, they will not. You have nothing to show they are not biased and seem to forget that the report was on raising wages in general, not this act in particular but they did address the differences in another pub. The bottom line is that it does NOT support your position to raise wages to $15 as has been pointed out in previous threads.

Even liberal economists are not recommending this increase, most agree (90%+) that above about $11-12 is not recommended.

Also congress knows that the bill shows likely job loss and will damage the economy so when the house discussed the bill, they passed an amendment on the bill (H.Amdt.596 to H.R.582) to tie the CBOs hands into only looking at the first 2 years, when analyzing this bill as now exists probably in hopes that it will show less damage. The CBO is to analyze the other 4 increases after the first 2 increases are done. The CBO is also to break out by each urban area, urban cluster (suburb) and rural area. Also, the amendment requires Congress to assess the report's findings and to take any appropriate legislative action, including action to delay or otherwise modify the next scheduled wage increases.

This bill is now really only an increase to $10.60 (not $15) and likely to be increased more only certain areas of the country, not nationwide - bet you missed that part.
 
Old 11-24-2020, 10:21 PM
 
1,957 posts, read 1,295,216 times
Reputation: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
My complaint is that you're Göbbeling (as usual).
"Our nation?" Are you a card-carrying member of the Chickasaw Tribe? The Miami Tribe?
Those are nations. The United States is not a nation. If you don't understand the difference, then hire a lawyer and sue the school district that issued your high school diploma for not educating you properly.
The English language, as do other languages, evolves, and is written and spoken with considerations of words’ nuances the archaic Mircea cannot tolerate.

She considers this as an issue of importantance? Would she suggest that it’s worthy of consideration by the United Countries’ General Assembly meetings when they next gather in New York?
Respectfully, Supposn

Refer to: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nation
Definition of nation
(Entry 1 of 2)
1a(1): NATIONALITY sense 5a // three Slav peoples … forged into a Yugoslavia without really fusing into a Yugoslav nation— Hans Kohn
(2): a politically organized nationality
(3): in the Bible : a non-Jewish nationality; why do the nations conspire— Psalms 2:1 (Revised Standard Version)
b: a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government; Canada is a nation with a written constitution— B. K. Sandwell
c: a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status, a nation of vast size with a small population— Mary K. Hammond
2. the archaic : GROUP, AGGREGATION
3: a tribe or federation of tribes (as of American Indians) the Seminole Nation in Oklahoma.
 
Old 11-25-2020, 12:25 AM
 
1,957 posts, read 1,295,216 times
Reputation: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeemo View Post
Why repost the same crap - you expect them to take a position, they will not. You have nothing to show they are not biased and seem to forget that the report was on raising wages in general, not this act in particular but they did address the differences in another pub. The bottom line is that it does NOT support your position to raise wages to $15 as has been pointed out in previous threads. ...
DDeemo, your post discusses my suggesting possibility of bias having affected the Congressional Budget Offices’, (i.e. CBO’s) reports regarding proposed modifications of our federal minimum wage rate laws. Additionally, your post discusses the conclusions that were or could be drawn from those reports’ contents.
Bias certainly can affect a reports’ contents, so it’s logical that we should first consider that facet of your post.

The CBO uses brackets of families’ poverty threshold statistics to differentiate among extents of poverty within differing families. Families’ poverty thresholds are determined by the comparative ratios between their total incomes and their numbers of family members.

To the extent of its purchasing power, our federal minimum wage rate reduces incidences and extent of poverty among our nation’s working-poor. That’s its purpose and justification.

The applicable minimum rate directly or (due to employers’ wage differential practices), almost directly affects only lower wage rates, earnings of those rates, and unemployment benefits due to prior earnings of those rates. If as the CBO projected families’ incomes less than their poverty threshold were increased by only 5.2% between 2017 and 2025, a good portion of those projected 2025 incomes must have been derived from other low-wage-rate incomes or unemployment benefits due to prior earnings of such incomes. The net increases of only wages and unemployment benefits for those families would be much greater than 5.2%.
Respectfully, Supposn
 
Old 11-25-2020, 05:59 AM
 
1,957 posts, read 1,295,216 times
Reputation: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeemo View Post
Why repost the same crap - you expect them to take a position, they will not. ...
DDeemo, referring to:
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/201...umWage2019.pdf
page 17, figure 6 graph of projected “Shares of Workers, by Family Income Group, 2025”.
further referring to the segment of families with incomes less than their poverty threshold:
the graph is based upon our population’s current proportional segments that are not expected to greatly vary for 2025 projections:

[It appears that the bracket of low-wage-rate employees, (i.e. based upon current proportions of employees earn less than $19 per hour under the current minimum wage rate), that are members of families of incomes less than their poverty threshold, are projected in 2025 to be approximately over 12% of persons within such families and over 4% of all USA employees.
The graph further correlates with CBO’s stating that low-wage-rate employees are over 32% of USA’s entire work force.]

If the 5.2% increase of those family’s incomes are attributed to increases of minimum wage rates after 2017, then the proportion of those increases are dependent upon 2025 low-wage-rate incomes and unemployment benefits proportion to those family’s total incomes.
If such incomes and benefits between 2017 and the end of 2025, would have increased:

By 70%, (1.052 / O.70) = 50% increase of such benefits due to minimum wage rate increases after 2017;

by 80%, (1.052 / O.80) = 19% increase of such benefits due to minimum wage rate increases after 2017;

by 90%, (1,052 / O.90) > 16% increase of such benefits due to minimum wage rate increases after 2017.
Respectfully, Supposn
 
Old 11-25-2020, 07:25 AM
 
1,957 posts, read 1,295,216 times
Reputation: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeemo View Post
... Even liberal economists are not recommending this increase, most agree (90%+) that above about $11-12 is not recommended.
DDeemo, I don’t doubt that those opposed to minimum wage rate laws, do not advocate increasing the federal minimum wage rate by more than $11. I’m unaware of any credible official or economist that are proponents of increasing the federal minimum wage rate to being opposed to a gradual increase that would finally exceed $5 or $6 more per hour.

I'm among those advocating a target of 125% of the minimum rate's February-1968 purchasing power, and thereafter annually adjusting the minimum rate to retain that targeted purchasing power.
Respectfully, Supposn
 
Old 11-25-2020, 05:23 PM
 
Location: San Diego
18,673 posts, read 7,546,354 times
Reputation: 14944
Did the Congressional Budget Office deliberately less inform the Congress and the public?


....or did the CBO put out its usual reports to the usual degree, but it was the media who chose to ignore them, play them down, basically do what you said: deliberately less inform the Congress and the public?
 
Old 11-25-2020, 06:18 PM
 
1,957 posts, read 1,295,216 times
Reputation: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeemo View Post
Why repost the same crap - You have nothing to show they are not biased and seem to forget that the report was on raising wages in general, not this act in particular but they did address the differences in another pub. The bottom line is that it, [CBO reports] does NOT support your position to raise wages to $15 as has been pointed out in previous threads. …
DDeemo, to draw conclusions from a CBO report, you should consider the entire report. Without at very least providing the 2025 projected proportional changes of family’s total incomes derived directly from wages, Congressional Budget Office’s, (i.e. CBO’s) analysis of the proposed “Raise the Wage Act” was not sufficiently informative, it also was not the condemnation that opponents of minimum wage rates had hoped for.

Despite CBO’s failure To fully consider and discuss incomes and unemployment benefits effected by increases of the federal minimum wage rate, a net reduction of families in poverty, and of the working-poor, while increasing the net wage incomes and total incomes of USA’s majority of families, while reducing the total incomes for families earning totals three or more times their poverty thresholds by a reduction range of zero through 1/3 of a percent of their total incomes, is not a proposal that’s economically and socially net detrimental to our nation.

Refer to: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/201...umWage2019.pdf
Respectfully, Supposn
 
Old 11-25-2020, 09:57 PM
 
Location: NNV
3,433 posts, read 3,721,721 times
Reputation: 6733
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
DDeemo, to draw conclusions from a CBO report, you should consider the entire report. Without at very least providing the 2025 projected proportional changes of family’s total incomes derived directly from wages, Congressional Budget Office’s, (i.e. CBO’s) analysis of the proposed “Raise the Wage Act” was not sufficiently informative, it also was not the condemnation that opponents of minimum wage rates had hoped for.

Despite CBO’s failure To fully consider and discuss incomes and unemployment benefits effected by increases of the federal minimum wage rate, a net reduction of families in poverty, and of the working-poor, while increasing the net wage incomes and total incomes of USA’s majority of families, while reducing the total incomes for families earning totals three or more times their poverty thresholds by a reduction range of zero through 1/3 of a percent of their total incomes, is not a proposal that’s economically and socially net detrimental to our nation.

Refer to: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/201...umWage2019.pdf
Respectfully, Supposn
I warned you. Don't waste our time.
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:23 AM.

© 2005-2024, 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