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.
Did the Congressional Budget Office deliberately less inform the Congress and the public?
Concerning Congressional Budget Office’s reports regarding the federal minimum wage rate:
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 all lower wage rates, earnings of those rates, and unemployment benefits due to prior earnings of those rates.
Decades after enacting modifications of its purchasing power, it indirectly affects social security, or long-term disability, or pensions incomes and benefits indirectly based upon prior low-wage rate earnings. It has extremely little or no affect upon any other families’ incomes or benefits.
The CBO’s reports regarding the federal minim wage rate employ U.S. census Bureau’s brackets of families’ total incomes ratios to their poverty thresholds, to differentiate between families of different sizes and total incomes. But the effects of the federal minimum wage rate upon families of similar sizes and poverty thresholds, can differ greatly due to proportional differences of those families’ incomes and benefits categories.
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?
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.
Then why were the 90% of workers who were agricultural workers exempted from the federal minimum wage?
Agricultural workers were not covered by the federal minimum wage until 1964.
Explain in detail how you reduce poverty by exempting 90% of workers from a program ostensibly designed to reduce poverty?
Is that not quite Orwellian?
Is there a reason why you are totally incapable of grasping the fact that the Cost-of-Living varies widely across the US?
How is it you still cannot wrap your brain around that?
Let us review how your federal government addresses the humongous deviation in Cost-of-Living around the US.
You and I apply for HUD Section 8 housing benefits so that tax-payers will subsidize our rent.
You get $1,401/month in Social Security benefits.
I get a Social Security benefit of $2,788/month, plus a pension of $1,878/month, for a total of $4,666/month.
HUD denies your claim for Section 8 benefits on the basis that you earn way too much money.
HUD approves my claim for Section 8 benefits because I don't earn enough money.
Let us review again: $1,401 is too much money, while $4,666 is not enough money.
We can quantify those extremes in terms of wage rates:
$26.92/hour - $6.93/hour = $19.99/hour
That is how widely the Cost-of-Living varies across America.
That is why the federal minimum wage is a massive fail and that part of the Fair Labor Standards Act should be repealed.
Then why were the 90% of workers who were agricultural workers exempted from the federal minimum wage?
Agricultural workers were not covered by the federal minimum wage until 1964.
Explain in detail how you reduce poverty by exempting 90% of workers from a program ostensibly designed to reduce poverty?
Is that not quite Orwellian? ...
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
... Is there a reason why you are totally incapable of grasping the fact that the Cost-of-Living varies widely across the US?
How is it you still cannot wrap your brain around that?
Let us review how your federal government addresses the humongous deviation in Cost-of-Living around the US. ...
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.
The federal MINIMUM wage rate is A MINIMUM rate, but not necessarily THE APPLICABLE MINIMUM rate within each of USA’s marketplaces. 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.
It is the employees within states that do not choose to better favor their population’s wage earners, that proportionally more benefit from the federal minimum wage rate.
Respectfully Supposn
... That is why the federal minimum wage is a massive fail and that part of the Fair Labor Standards Act should be repealed.
Mircea, 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.
I’m an old man. Unless I die much sooner than expected, I’m confident within my lifetime, the federal minimum wage rate’s purchasing power will be increased to a targeted value substantially greater than its current value, and there after it will be monitored and annually adjusted to retain no less than that targeted value.
I‘m among the proponents of that value to be 125% greater than its February-1968 purchasing power.
Respectfully Supposn
I'm still waiting for the Social Security cola to reflect products actually purchased by seniors. Let's see if the adjustment supported by the Democrats actually make it into my checking account.
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.
The federal MINIMUM wage rate is A MINIMUM rate, but not necessarily THE APPLICABLE MINIMUM rate within each of USA’s marketplaces. 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.
It is the employees within states that do not choose to better favor their population’s wage earners, that proportionally more benefit from the federal minimum wage rate.
Respectfully Supposn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
Mircea, 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.
I’m an old man. Unless I die much sooner than expected, I’m confident within my lifetime, the federal minimum wage rate’s purchasing power will be increased to a targeted value substantially greater than its current value, and there after it will be monitored and annually adjusted to retain no less than that targeted value.
I‘m among the proponents of that value to be 125% greater than its February-1968 purchasing power.
Respectfully Supposn
Are you repeating that drivel about the minimum wage from several months ago? Are we going to have to take you down again??? We already proved you don't know what you're talking about.
Did the Congressional Budget Office deliberately less inform the Congress and the public?
Concerning Congressional Budget Office’s reports regarding the federal minimum wage rate:
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 all lower wage rates, earnings of those rates, and unemployment benefits due to prior earnings of those rates.
Decades after enacting modifications of its purchasing power, it indirectly affects social security, or long-term disability, or pensions incomes and benefits indirectly based upon prior low-wage rate earnings. It has extremely little or no affect upon any other families’ incomes or benefits.
The CBO’s reports regarding the federal minim wage rate employ U.S. census Bureau’s brackets of families’ total incomes ratios to their poverty thresholds, to differentiate between families of different sizes and total incomes. But the effects of the federal minimum wage rate upon families of similar sizes and poverty thresholds, can differ greatly due to proportional differences of those families’ incomes and benefits categories.
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
The CBO is non-partisan and is tasked with Budget estimates, not policy - from the cbo.gov web site
Quote:
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 on the basis of 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.
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.
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.
