• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CBO Says Minimum-Wage Rise May Ease Poverty, Cost Jobs

Dunno if this has been posted yet:

CBO: ObamaCare Magnifies Minimum Wage Hike Jobs Losses - Investors.com

But in a footnote, the nonpartisan number cruncher explained that near-term job loss may be higher because its analysis didn't factor in the new ObamaCare costs imposed on employers.

"At the same time that the proposed increases in the minimum wage would take effect, the Affordable Care Act's requirement that many employers provide health insurance (or pay a penalty if they do not) will impose an additional cost on employers for some low-wage workers who do not currently have employment-based health insurance," the CBO said.

Over time, the CBO expects that the cost of complying with ObamaCare's employer mandate "will ultimately be borne by (low-wage) workers through lower wages."
 
So I'm going to take a gamble here and just be up front about my lack of understanding when it comes to economics and run this by you all:

It seems to me that the questions around wage comes down to the ethics of the company making the decision (at least for larger employers) Meaning it does not seem to be a question of whether or not they can stay in business if they pay their employees more or even how that choice will impact the cost of their product(s) it seems to be a question of whether or not they respect their workers enough to compromise on their profits a little in order to provide a living wage to them. It is possible for WalMart to pay their employees more and not pass that cost on to consumers, they would stay in business and the cost of their goods would not be affected if they made the choice to do it because it was the "right" thing to do. We all know that they will not make that choice. Not in a capitalist system that is driven solely by the largest possible profit for the business owner. Point being I guess, it seems to boil down to maximizing personal profit and prioritizing it over serving the larger good or community with just a little compromise on that profit.

Did you ever think these companies are in business to make money? Do you think they have an obligation to the shareholders of the company? You think if a company makes money it owes it to the worker. What BS. I don't know if you have a 401K or an investment fund that may be invested in stocks, if so you want that investment to grow. Investors are invested to make money and it's up to the board of directors and the CEO to make that happen. Meaning buy materials cheap, have a streamline operation, hire people to do the job at a minimal cost, no different than buying raw materials at a minimal cost, etc etc.

Sense when are businesses to compromise anything, especially their profit line?
 
LOL i love it when liberals break out these types of comments.

The average wage at walmart is already 9-12 bucks an hour depending on position.

companies pay according to market analysis of what the position around the country pays. pay scales have become pretty much standardized at this point.

Companies at walmart also target certain markets. They know the price of what people will pay and not pay in those markets. places like walmart have very low margins, and even more loss when it comes to theft.

companies have a set profit margin that they must make in order to maintain company function. so you are right they are not going to compromise on that, nor should they.

raises and increases come when they exceed those projections.

by all means please start a business overpaying your employee's while having to maintain a certain price point that people will actually pay and see how long you stay in business.

i started my post my admitting I don't know alot about economics. If you have such a fragile little ego that you need to be an ass despite that, then **** off
 
Did you ever think these companies are in business to make money? Do you think they have an obligation to the shareholders of the company? You think if a company makes money it owes it to the worker. What BS. I don't know if you have a 401K or an investment fund that may be invested in stocks, if so you want that investment to grow. Investors are invested to make money and it's up to the board of directors and the CEO to make that happen. Meaning buy materials cheap, have a streamline operation, hire people to do the job at a minimal cost, no different than buying raw materials at a minimal cost, etc etc.

Sense when are businesses to compromise anything, especially their profit line?

please ref post 28
 
i started my post my admitting I don't know alot about economics.
Then you started your post admitting what Boehner has said countless times.
Problem for Democrats is, we can't clone Paul Ryan enough times to chair every House committee .
 
If you have such a fragile little ego that you need to be an ass despite that, then **** off
Don't let him do this do you.
Speak to someone of like mind when they do this and ignore them .
 
Don't let him do this do you.
Speak to someone of like mind when they do this and ignore them .

good point. thanks. down side is that people of like mind don't challenge you the same way. I should have known better.
 
There are other economists and credible research that tells a different story. One that shows it will likely have little or no negative impact on jobs and will give a small boost to the economy.

Seven Nobel Economists Endorse a $10.10 Minimum Wage - Businessweek

“At a time when persistent high unemployment is putting enormous downward pressure on wages, such a minimum-wage increase would provide a much-needed boost to the earnings of low-wage workers.”

“the weight of evidence now show that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market.”


Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10 Will Not Lead to Job Loss | Economic Policy Institute

This finding is consistent with the most recent, highly rigorous, peer-reviewed economic literature based on an analysis of real-world minimum wage increases across counties on state borders that shows essentially no disemployment effect resulting from raising the minimum wage.2 - See more at: Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10 Will Not Lead to Job Loss | Economic Policy Institute

This is a pretty comprehensive study demonstrating how minimum wage increases play out across America.

edu/workingpapers/157-07.pdf
 
Ever and always...those that arent in 'the business' have the 'answers'. Perhaps the 'CBO' and others should show how successful they are at running small businesses and at wage/salary management.
 
CBO Says Minimum-Wage Rise May Ease Poverty, Cost Jobs

'Increasing the U.S. minimum wage may lift some workers out of poverty while leading to as many as 1 million job losses, according to a report from the Congressional Budget Office.

The report was seized on by House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican who opposes President Barack Obama’s call to increase the minimum wage to $10.10. The federal minimum wage is currently $7.25 an hour.

...A change in employment probably would range from a “very slight reduction” to a decrease of 1 million jobs, CBO said. Some workers would lose their jobs as companies look to offset the change by reducing payrolls, according to the report.'



CBO Says Minimum-Wage Rise May Ease Poverty, Cost Jobs - Bloomberg

And in a related development, water is wet. Are there really people who didn't see this coming? Do those people believe in unicorns too?:peace
 
More money in the working man's pocket means he'll spend more at Wal-Mart. More money going back into the economy means happier businesses.

If the money came from wal-mart in the first place, then it's not more money going back into the economy, it's a net loss for Wal-Mart and the economy.
 
Last edited:
And in a related development, water is wet. Are there really people who didn't see this coming?

The ability of people to deny what they do not wish to believe should never be underestimated.


Dang, I ought to put that up in quotes and trade-mark it.
 
If the money came from wal-mart in the first place, then it's not more money going back into the economy, it's a net loss for Wal-Mart and the economy.

If only Wal-mart raises their wages, yes its a net loss. However if the wage is raised across the nation it actually improves their position. Wal-mart has been fighting for an increase for years.

Walmart Could Actually Benefit From Minimum-Wage Hike
 
If only Wal-mart raises their wages, yes its a net loss. However if the wage is raised across the nation it actually improves their position. Wal-mart has been fighting for an increase for years.

Walmart Could Actually Benefit From Minimum-Wage Hike

Yes it would be a net loss for Wal-mart and if the wage is raised across the nation all the companies in the country loose and less workers are hired.
 
Yes it would be a net loss for Wal-mart and if the wage is raised across the nation all the companies in the country loose and less workers are hired.

Companies like Wal-Mart would benefit greatly because their customer base is heavily in the lower income bracket. Everyone in retail's vast supply chain would also benefit.

Whether or not this would be good or bad overall is a contentious matter. Considering all the research I think it would do more good than harm especially considering how badly the economy needs stimulus right now.
 
Someone raised a good point earlier ...
how come something like raising gas prices in order to encourage less driving is an accepted practice but raising the minimum wage is claimed to have no effect on employment?
 
He'll spend more at Wal-mart, but take home the same merchandise. Cost goes up, prices go up, too. It's already happening as grocery prices are taking off.

I think you're forgetting the Wal-Mart low price pledge
Wal-MartAlwaysLowPrices.jpg


Always.
 
Companies like Wal-Mart would benefit greatly because their customer base is heavily in the lower income bracket. Everyone in retail's vast supply chain would also benefit.

Whether or not this would be good or bad overall is a contentious matter. Considering all the research I think it would do more good than harm especially considering how badly the economy needs stimulus right now.

We already did a trillion dollar stimulus and no results vs the expense.

Further if raising the minimum wage is good then where do you see how much the minimum wage should be? If raising the minimum wage is good then should it not be raised to $100 an hour or more. Meaning the more the minimum wage is increased the more the economy grows. We are now at a growth rate on average at 2 percent, with a raise to $100 minimum wage the economy should burst with growth. Is this not your view?
 
If only Wal-mart raises their wages, yes its a net loss. However if the wage is raised across the nation it actually improves their position. Wal-mart has been fighting for an increase for years.

Can you post a link citing Walmart pushing for a minimum wage increase? I hadn't been aware of that.
 
There are other economists and credible research that tells a different story.

Sure. And according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, those economists are in the rather distinct minority.

...We review the burgeoning literature on the employment effects of minimum wages - in the United States and other countries - that was spurred by the new minimum wage research beginning in the early 1990s. Our review indicates that there is a wide range of existing estimates and, accordingly, a lack of consensus about the overall effects on low-wage employment of an increase in the minimum wage. However, the oft-stated assertion that recent research fails to support the traditional view that the minimum wage reduces the employment of low-wage workers is clearly incorrect. A sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent (although not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages. In addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the United States as well as for many other countries. Two other important conclusions emerge from our review. First, we see very few - if any - studies that provide convincing evidence of positive employment effects of minimum wages, especially from those studies that focus on the broader groups (rather than a narrow industry) for which the competitive model predicts disemployment effects. Second, the studies that focus on the least-skilled groups provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment effects for these groups....​

That's a great way to "hide the decline", so to speak; measure the impact of minimum wage hikes against the entire working populace, rather than, you know, the ones effected by it.
 
I think you're forgetting the Wal-Mart low price pledge

Wal-Mart doesn't get to upend economic reality. If the cost of producing, shipping, storing, and then selling a good to you goes up, so too, must the price. Especially if the good is already sold in such a manner as to slice profits low so as to make a bundle on volume. Like, for example, the goods at Wal-Mart.
 
Back
Top Bottom