• 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!

The federal minimum wage rate’s net beneficial to USA’s economy and society.

joG said:
Two points.

Economic models in economics tend to use other than simple algebra.

Which multipliers do you mean? Period 1 or 2 or say 20?
Click to expand...

We have to discuss the concept with words to even get to the math; why waste time on a fallacy, but for speculation.

There is no harm to solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

A positive economic multiplier can help grow our economy.

What is wrong with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour for unemployment compensation simply because the wealthiest can take advantage of a capital gains distinction without any need for a work ethic from the Age of Iron.
 
danielpalos said:
We have to discuss the concept with words to even get to the math; why waste time on a fallacy, but for speculation.

There is no harm to solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

A positive economic multiplier can help grow our economy.

What is wrong with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour for unemployment compensation simply because the wealthiest can take advantage of a capital gains distinction without any need for a work ethic from the Age of Iron.
Click to expand...

In other words, you are repeating, what someone told you. I would advise you not to in future. it hurts your credibility.
 
joG said:
In other words, you are repeating, what someone told you. I would advise you not to in future. it hurts your credibility.
Click to expand...

This is my argument; you allege to have some sort of refutation instead of the fallacy of simple rejection.

There is no harm to solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

A positive economic multiplier can help grow our economy.

What is wrong with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour for unemployment compensation simply because the wealthiest can take advantage of a capital gains distinction without any need for a work ethic from the Age of Iron.
 
danielpalos said:
Fifteen dollars an hour competes favorably with the cost of social services, so people will actually be motivated to work.
Click to expand...

Yet that still puts the onus on the rest of us to support people in the form of higher prices for services and goods, meaning we're still getting taxed but via a different form. The companies aren't going to just pay the raises out of their pockets; they'll have to raise prices.
 
Brewdog said:
Yet that still puts the onus on the rest of us to support people in the form of higher prices for services and goods, meaning we're still getting taxed but via a different form. The companies aren't going to just pay the raises out of their pockets; they'll have to raise prices.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point about capitalism and "growing the size of the pie" through a positive multiplier effect.
 
danielpalos said:
You are missing the point about capitalism and "growing the size of the pie" through a positive multiplier effect.
Click to expand...

And you're missing the point that it's still welfare at the cost of the rest of us that buy things. You may as well just send them all more foodstamps and housing checks, because it's a cost to the middle class one way or another.
 
Brewdog said:
And you're missing the point that it's still welfare at the cost of the rest of us that buy things. You may as well just send them all more foodstamps and housing checks, because it's a cost to the middle class one way or another.
Click to expand...

Why not ditch our drug war, so we can massive budget surpluses; so you won't have to.
 
danielpalos said:
Why not ditch our drug war, so we can massive budget surpluses; so you won't have to.
Click to expand...

Why not do both of these things? Stop taxing me to provide welfare for moochers and stop putting people in a cage for using drugs.
 
joG said:
Yep. Left wing populists will tell that story instead of worrying about the economic maths involved.
Click to expand...

joG, Federal minimum wage rates’ effects upon USA’s wage rates:

Labor rates differ due to the challenges inherent to each job. Within every labor market there’s a theoretical, INDEFINITE, market determined rate for every job or task.

Many states enacted their own legally defined and mandated minimum wage rate. And some of them exceed the current federal minimum rate DEFINED as $7.25 an hour. Wherever higher state rate is not effectively applied, the federal rate generally can and is effectively applied. Within the USA, legally mandated minimum wage rates effect even the least challenging jobs.

[If the federal minimum wage rate were eliminated, state’s minimums would not be as sustainable. Wherever there is no effectively enforced minimum rate or that rate is less than labor markets’ supply and demand determination of an INDEFINITE theoretical rate, that theoretical rate serves as the effective minimum wage rate for those markets’ least challenging tasks.]
Calculating reduction of any actual USA job’s wage rate by that job’s theoretical indefinite USA wage rate results with the portion of the actual rate that’s attributable to the legally mandated minimum rate.

For example: the current federal minimum wage rate is $7.25 per hour.

Positive ($7.25)
Minus (the current indefinite theoretical wage rate for USA’s least challenging tasks)
equals (current portion of those $7.25 wage rate jobs attributable to the federal minimum wage rate).

That portion of USA’s minimum wage jobs actual rates that’s attributable to the effect of the federal minimum wage rate is approximately the same DEFINITE dollar amount of federal minimum wage rate’s effect upon all other actual USA wage rates; but they proportionally differ to all other actual USA wage rates.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
ocean515 said:
A flock of red flags are raised when absolutes are mentioned. "No nation's economy has ever been damaged by increases of their lowest wage rates". This is untrue.

Where does your suggestion incorporate mechanisms to address the inflationary triggers inherent in it's approach?

There are many examples to be gleaned from Nations who failed to address this fact.

For example:

https://panampost.com/sabrina-martin/2016/08/19/with-new-wage-increase-venezuela-braces-for-worsening-inflation-layoffs/

Venezuela’s national minimum wage was raised 50 percent this week, but experts warned President Nicolás Maduro the increase could result in closures to small businesses.

Maduro has bragged in the past about the 14 increases in minimum wage made over the last three years, but fails to address that the country faces the highest inflation in the world.​
Click to expand...

Ocean515, I’m not disregarding your post. I’ve been trying to obtain a link relating the dates of Venezuela’s minimum wage increases and the extent of their currencies purchasing power losses.

I’ve never encountered a nation increasing their wage rates and causing losses of their currencies purchasing power. What I’ve often read of, and the USA experience has been for wages to increase in REACTION, (not a CAUSE) of currency inflation; those reactions were always too little and too late. The USA has never increased the minimum wage rate without warning or radically. Those increases were never economic shocks.

Maduro’s characteristics are similar to Donald Trump’s. They are erratic and impulsive. They go beyond failing to act upon the best advice they can obtain. They believe their own “seat of the pants” judgments are generally more valid than all others.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
I'm Supposn said:
Ocean515, I’m not disregarding your post. I’ve been trying to obtain a link relating the dates of Venezuela’s minimum wage increases and the extent of their currencies purchasing power losses.

I’ve never encountered a nation increasing their wage rates and causing losses of their currencies purchasing power. What I’ve often read of, and the USA experience has been for wages to increase in REACTION, (not a CAUSE) of currency inflation; those reactions were always too little and too late. The USA has never increased the minimum wage rate without warning or radically. Those increases were never economic shocks.

Maduro’s characteristics are similar to Donald Trump’s. They are erratic and impulsive. They go beyond failing to act upon the best advice they can obtain. They believe their own “seat of the pants” judgments are generally more valid than all others.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

Ocean515, I can see how this post of 12:51 PM today may lead readers to believe I’m denying that increases of wages contributes to currency inflation. All increases of price and spending make such contributions.

Federal minimum wage rate increases are not among the primary drivers reducing U.S. dollar’s purchasing powers. The minimum wage rate’s much less a cause and much more a victim of our dollar’s losses of purchasing powers.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
I'm Supposn said:
joG, Federal minimum wage rates’ effects upon USA’s wage rates:

Labor rates differ due to the challenges inherent to each job. Within every labor market there’s a theoretical, INDEFINITE, market determined rate for every job or task.

Many states enacted their own legally defined and mandated minimum wage rate. And some of them exceed the current federal minimum rate DEFINED as $7.25 an hour. Wherever higher state rate is not effectively applied, the federal rate generally can and is effectively applied. Within the USA, legally mandated minimum wage rates effect even the least challenging jobs.

[If the federal minimum wage rate were eliminated, state’s minimums would not be as sustainable. Wherever there is no effectively enforced minimum rate or that rate is less than labor markets’ supply and demand determination of an INDEFINITE theoretical rate, that theoretical rate serves as the effective minimum wage rate for those markets’ least challenging tasks.]
Calculating reduction of any actual USA job’s wage rate by that job’s theoretical indefinite USA wage rate results with the portion of the actual rate that’s attributable to the legally mandated minimum rate.

For example: the current federal minimum wage rate is $7.25 per hour.

Positive ($7.25)
Minus (the current indefinite theoretical wage rate for USA’s least challenging tasks)
equals (current portion of those $7.25 wage rate jobs attributable to the federal minimum wage rate).

That portion of USA’s minimum wage jobs actual rates that’s attributable to the effect of the federal minimum wage rate is approximately the same DEFINITE dollar amount of federal minimum wage rate’s effect upon all other actual USA wage rates; but they proportionally differ to all other actual USA wage rates.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

At $7.50 the minimum wage probably does not do so very much harm with other matters like regulated administration and the like restricting jobs more. Nonetheless, it is quite likely that more people would be employed in menial jobs than are, were the price of labor $4. That would give now unemployed persons a way into the labor force they presently do not have.
 
joG said:
At $7.50 the minimum wage probably does not do so very much harm with other matters like regulated administration and the like restricting jobs more. Nonetheless, it is quite likely that more people would be employed in menial jobs than are, were the price of labor $4. That would give now unemployed persons a way into the labor force they presently do not have.
Click to expand...

joG, reducing the federal minimum wage’s purchasing power also reduces the purchasing power of the median wage.

Reduction of the federal minimum wage, (i.e. the FMW) would induce creation of additional minimum wage jobs that did not in the past justify the current FMW’s purchasing power. Some people effectively deemed unemployable at the current FMW rate could be employable at a reduced FMW rate’s purchasing power.

The numbers of additional jobs created due to the reduction of the FMW’s purchasing power is positively related to the extent of the FMW’s purchasing power reduction. When the U.S. Congress fails to keep the FMW in tandem with the reduced purchasing power of inflated U.S. dollars, there does occur some more than otherwise increases of lowest wage jobs.
But FMW’s reduced purchasing powers effects ripples throughout USA’s labor markets. The consequences are more lowest paying jobs and lesser than otherwise purchasing powers for all USA jobs. Additionally, a greater portion of the working poor are in more dire need for public assistance (that the generally do not receive because they are employed).

[The FMW is less a contributor and more a victim of the U.S. dollar’s inflation. The FMW inversely and proportionally affects ALL USA wages and salaries; wage rates of lesser paying jobs proportionally benefit more, and higher paying job rates proportionally benefit less due to the FMW; but USA’s median wage and all other wages and salary schedules benefit due to the FMW].

The federal minimum wage rate is of net benefit to USA's economic and social well being.

What are you referring to by "regulated administration and the like restricting jobs more"? Is that an other than the topic of the FMW rate?

Respectfully, Supposn
 
I'm Supposn said:
joG, reducing the federal minimum wage’s purchasing power also reduces the purchasing power of the median wage.

Reduction of the federal minimum wage, (i.e. the FMW) would induce creation of additional minimum wage jobs that did not in the past justify the current FMW’s purchasing power. Some people effectively deemed unemployable at the current FMW rate could be employable at a reduced FMW rate’s purchasing power.

The numbers of additional jobs created due to the reduction of the FMW’s purchasing power is positively related to the extent of the FMW’s purchasing power reduction. When the U.S. Congress fails to keep the FMW in tandem with the reduced purchasing power of inflated U.S. dollars, there does occur some more than otherwise increases of lowest wage jobs.
But FMW’s reduced purchasing powers effects ripples throughout USA’s labor markets. The consequences are more lowest paying jobs and lesser than otherwise purchasing powers for all USA jobs. Additionally, a greater portion of the working poor are in more dire need for public assistance (that the generally do not receive because they are employed).

[The FMW is less a contributor and more a victim of the U.S. dollar’s inflation. The FMW inversely and proportionally affects ALL USA wages and salaries; wage rates of lesser paying jobs proportionally benefit more, and higher paying job rates proportionally benefit less due to the FMW; but USA’s median wage and all other wages and salary schedules benefit due to the FMW].

The federal minimum wage rate is of net benefit to USA's economic and social well being.

What are you referring to by "regulated administration and the like restricting jobs more"? Is that an other than the topic of the FMW rate?

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

Which research do you base this on and why do you suspect it is better than a minimum income or negative tax solution? I have looked at these things quite closely and have read a really lot. judging by that and basic economics I think you have it wrong. But I will gladly read, what you have.
 
joG said:
At $7.50 the minimum wage probably does not do so very much harm with other matters like regulated administration and the like restricting jobs more. Nonetheless, it is quite likely that more people would be employed in menial jobs than are, were the price of labor $4. That would give now unemployed persons a way into the labor force they presently do not have.
Click to expand...

Why? Just so the poor can work harder for less and the rich can get richer faster.

We don't need to socialize labor costs just so the wealthiest can get bigger bonuses.

A fifteen dollar an hour privatizes costs for Capitalists, not socialize cost for socialists.

We have unemployment compensation if we want any socialism to pick up capitalism's slack.
 
joG said:
Which research do you base this on and why do you suspect it is better than a minimum income or negative tax solution? I have looked at these things quite closely and have read a really lot. judging by that and basic economics I think you have it wrong. But I will gladly read, what you have.
Click to expand...

joG, regarding federal minimum wage rate and negative income tax:

Both the concept of a minimum wage rate and the entitlement of a minimum living standard should require that the benefits retain the extent of their purchasing powers regardless of that of the U.S. dollar.

The minimum wage rate doesn’t directly affect the annual federal budget, or compromise our nation’s credit, and is not a tax. If we’re unable to pass such minimum wage rate through the U.S. Congress, passage of a federal minimum living standard exceeding less possible. Many, possibly most firm proponents for such an improved federal minimum rate law would also be amiable to a law providing a federal entitlement for a living standard.

Among voters and elected federal officials less committed to the concept of our minimum wage rate, the concept of a living wage is frightening. Many of those are certainly less likely to approve of a federal living standard law. Rather than serving as a bargaining chip to obtain passage of the improved minimum wage rate law, lobbying for a federal living standard entitlement would not lead to such a law’s passage; The consequence of strong lobbying for a federal living standard entitlement would likely be a lesser or no improvement of our minimum wage rate laws and no passage of living standard entitlement law.

Greatly expanding the scope and extent of federal earned income tax credit regulations would eliminate the need for our federal minimum wage regulations but lesser expansion of those IRS regulations would not eliminate the need for improved federal minimum wage rate regulations. Until federal living standard laws are enacted and then FULLY demonstrated their adequacy, I’d be opposed to eliminating the federal minimum wage rate.

Your post didn’t mention some provision for government being the employer of last resort. Enactment and then FULLY demonstrated adequacy of such a law would eliminate or reduce the need for the federal minimum wage rate.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
danielpalos said:
Why? Just so the poor can work harder for less and the rich can get richer faster.

We don't need to socialize labor costs just so the wealthiest can get bigger bonuses.

A fifteen dollar an hour privatizes costs for Capitalists, not socialize cost for socialists.

We have unemployment compensation if we want any socialism to pick up capitalism's slack.
Click to expand...

Please think about it first and come back, when you have thought it through.
 
I'm Supposn said:
joG, regarding federal minimum wage rate and negative income tax:

Both the concept of a minimum wage rate and the entitlement of a minimum living standard should require that the benefits retain the extent of their purchasing powers regardless of that of the U.S. dollar.

The minimum wage rate doesn’t directly affect the annual federal budget, or compromise our nation’s credit, and is not a tax. If we’re unable to pass such minimum wage rate through the U.S. Congress, passage of a federal minimum living standard exceeding less possible. Many, possibly most firm proponents for such an improved federal minimum rate law would also be amiable to a law providing a federal entitlement for a living standard.

Among voters and elected federal officials less committed to the concept of our minimum wage rate, the concept of a living wage is frightening. Many of those are certainly less likely to approve of a federal living standard law. Rather than serving as a bargaining chip to obtain passage of the improved minimum wage rate law, lobbying for a federal living standard entitlement would not lead to such a law’s passage; The consequence of strong lobbying for a federal living standard entitlement would likely be a lesser or no improvement of our minimum wage rate laws and no passage of living standard entitlement law.

Greatly expanding the scope and extent of federal earned income tax credit regulations would eliminate the need for our federal minimum wage regulations but lesser expansion of those IRS regulations would not eliminate the need for improved federal minimum wage rate regulations. Until federal living standard laws are enacted and then FULLY demonstrated their adequacy, I’d be opposed to eliminating the federal minimum wage rate.

Your post didn’t mention some provision for government being the employer of last resort. Enactment and then FULLY demonstrated adequacy of such a law would eliminate or reduce the need for the federal minimum wage rate.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

Oh, minimum wage does affect the fiscal budget and credit and reduces the strength of our society. But I do not see, why that would be good in any case. Why should the voter not pay for the payments she demands be made? To make a third party pay for making you happy is dispicable mooching.
 
joG said:
Please think about it first and come back, when you have thought it through.
Click to expand...

I have; you have nothing but diversion and that form of fallacy; only right wing slackers who have nothing but repeal instead of better solutions at lower cost, do that.

Why? Just so the poor can work harder for less and the rich can get richer faster.

We don't need to socialize labor costs just so the wealthiest can get bigger bonuses.

A fifteen dollar an hour privatizes costs for Capitalists, not socialize cost for socialists.

We have unemployment compensation if we want any socialism to pick up capitalism's slack.
 
joG said:
Oh, minimum wage does affect the fiscal budget and credit and reduces the strength of our society. But I do not see, why that would be good in any case. Why should the voter not pay for the payments she demands be made? To make a third party pay for making you happy is dispicable mooching.
Click to expand...

Jog, I entirely disagree with your post’s first sentence.

Within all levels of laws and regulations within the USA, there are examples of what would otherwise have been otherwise legal, having been specifically identified, described, and deemed to be legally prohibited activity or agreements.
The justification of such regulations is to prevent what otherwise would be grievous harm to individuals and to our aggregate society.

I agree with those contending the absence of a sufficient and effectively enforced minimum wage rate or something that fully accomplishes the minimum rate’s purpose, promotes wage rates generally so low as to reduce government’s tax revenues, and/or increase government’s expenditures, and/or increase the social and economic detrimental effects that are due to poverty; (i.e. promotes wage rates (“racing to the bottom”).

Respectfully, Supposn
 
joG said:
Oh, minimum wage does affect the fiscal budget and credit and reduces the strength of our society. But I do not see, why that would be good in any case. Why should the voter not pay for the payments she demands be made? To make a third party pay for making you happy is dispicable mooching.
Click to expand...

Jog,The federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate is of net social and economic benefit to our nation. It has never been among the major causes of the U.S. Dollar’s inflation; on the contrary it’s certainly among inflations’ victims.
No individuals are poorer and no enterprises suffers any competitive disadvantage to any USA enterprises directly due to the FMW rate.

[there’s no doubt that USA’s higher wage rates are a cause of our products’ price disadvantages in comparison to products from lower wage nations; but although the elimination of our FMW rate laws would be greatly detrimental to our nation’s net social and economic wellbeing, eliminating it would accomplish extremely little to remedy our products’ global price disadvantages].

I suppose most USA’s population, (significantly much more than a 10% plurality) to some extent approve of federal minimum rate’s existence. There are few among wealthy or competent people that are opposed to the federal minimum rate.
An overwhelming proportions of minimum rate opponents lack self-esteem.
They need whatever affirmation of their own worth that they can derive by being able to look down upon people experiencing lesser financial conditions. They cannot acknowledge or admit to themselves their fears of improving the financial conditions of others would consequentially reduce their own social status. That’s the essence of personal opposition to the FMW rate. The political opposition to the concept of a minimum wage rate’s driven by those politicians placating the many fearful souls that dread losing what they perceive to be their social status.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
I'm Supposn said:
I agree with those contending the absence of a sufficient and effectively enforced minimum wage rate or something that fully accomplishes the minimum rate’s purpose, promotes wage rates generally so low
Click to expand...

1) Supposin is apparently a communist who supports minimum wage and general trade interference, plus 998 other ways for left wing govt to interfere with capitalism until it is communism.

2) Capitalism supports race to the top wages. A capitalist has to pay the highest wage possible and produce the best product possible just to survive. If you doubt it start a business with substandard wages and products. Can a liberal predict what would happen? Notice how easily a liberal argument is defeated.

Norman Thomas ( socialist presidential candidate)
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
 
I'm Supposn said:
An overwhelming proportions of minimum rate opponents lack self-esteem.
Click to expand...

too bad there is the law of supply and demand which states that when you raise wages you reduce the demand for jobs. This is why, for example the demand for Rolls Royce cars is less than for Chevy's. Notice how easy it is to defeat a liberal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom