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

Lafayette · Jan 16, 2017

ttwtt78640 said:
OK, I agree with automatic CPI adjustment of the federal MW (as is done for SS retirement benefits) but what is the "proper" method of determining the current federal MW base rate?

The Poverty Threshold is the answer to your question. We should simply banish poverty.

The Poverty Thresholds depend upon size of family and are constantly updated by the Census Bureau. One may find them here.

For a family of four, the threshold value today is $24K a year ($11.54 an hour) that should be Minimum Wage. That could be slightly corrected by tax exemptions for number of children in the household.

That is the basic minimum that should stand for the entire United States. But, given current trends in the US, that may not happen in our lifetimes given the plutocratic control that we, the sheeple, have just reiterated once again in recent national voting.

America, that Great Democracy, just shot itself in the foot yet again ...

James972 · Jan 16, 2017

Lafayette said:
The Poverty Threshold is the answer to your question. We should simply banish poverty.
..

thats what Republican capitalist corporations do. China just switched to them and eliminated 40% of the poverty on earth almost instantly.

jdog · Jan 22, 2017

I'm Supposn said:
The federal minimum wage rate’s net beneficial to USA’s economy and society.

The federal minimum wage rate increases the purchasing powers of USA’s aggregate wages.Its
less a cause and much more a victim of inflation.

The purchasingpower of the federal minimum wage rate affects all other USA wage rates but itsproportional effect is inversely related to job’s differing wage rates.
USA’s lowest paying jobs performed by the least desirable employees, (i.e. the working poor) are, (proportional to their wage rates), the greatest beneficiaries of the federal minimum wage rate. But all USA wage rates are bolstered by the federal minimum wage rate.

Increasesof the federal minimum wage rate, (similar to all prices or spending increases) contribute to the U.S. dollar’s rate of inflation; but it’s not among the primary causes of that inflation. The federal minimum wage rate is much less a cause and much more a victim of U.S. dollar’s purchasing power. Not increasing the minimum wagedoes not prevent the U. S. dollar’s reduction of purchasing power but our minimum and median wages’ lesser purchasing powers certainly increase our incidences and extents of poverty.

That’s why I’m among the proponents for increasing the minimum wage and thereafter annually monitoring and when necessary updating it to remain abreast with a cost-price index number. For many years that method has retained social security retirement benefits’ purchasing powers.

Respectfully, Supposn

Hogwash, the minimum wage was a stupid idea from the onset. It has now grown into a driving force that will force many employers to eliminate human workers and replace them with automation. The idiot liberals can then take responsibility for the millions of unemployed homeless who will be the end result of the minimum wage.

I'm Supposn · Jan 23, 2017

joG said:
I think reduction of competitiveness and the loss of jobs more important than you seem to.

Jog, the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate affects all other USA labor compensation to some extent. Its purpose is to reduce wage rate’s “race to the bottom” within the USA and its consequential numbers and extents of poverty within our population.

I believe USA’s median quality of life as indicated by the purchasing power of our median wage is of greater significance than the proportion of our population that’s employed. Employment is less meaningful if the wage’s purchasing power is insufficient.

Are you suggesting we should promote USA poverty by eliminating the FMW rate to reduce USA’s global trade deficit? You propose that it’s preferable that we reduce our trade deficit by reducing our median quality life to the levels of poorer foreign nations?

Refer to Refer to Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates”
or to
http://www.debatepolitics.com/econo...under-priced-products-low-wage-nations-2.html

Respectfully, Supposn

joG · Jan 24, 2017

I'm Supposn said:
Jog, the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate affects all other USA labor compensation to some extent. Its purpose is to reduce wage rate’s “race to the bottom” within the USA and its consequential numbers and extents of poverty within our population.

I believe USA’s median quality of life as indicated by the purchasing power of our median wage is of greater significance than the proportion of our population that’s employed. Employment is less meaningful if the wage’s purchasing power is insufficient.

Are you suggesting we should promote USA poverty by eliminating the FMW rate to reduce USA’s global trade deficit? You propose that it’s preferable that we reduce our trade deficit by reducing our median quality life to the levels of poorer foreign nations?

Refer to Refer to Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates”
or to
http://www.debatepolitics.com/econo...under-priced-products-low-wage-nations-2.html

Respectfully, Supposn

Why do you want to take away the unions' job from them and reduce employment by government action? If a job doesn't produce the marginal return to support a wage, why would you want to take the employers' money. They are creating jobs. You shouldn't want to punish them. If you want people to have a floor on. Earnings, you should pay and not the people creating the jobs. If voters want higher than deserved income it should come out of taxes.

James972 · Jan 24, 2017

I'm Supposn said:
. Its purpose is to reduce wage rate’s “race to the bottom”

of course capitalism is a race to the top given that it forces a business to provide the best jobs and products possible or go bankrupt. If you doubt it try going into business with substandard wages and products. Can you predict the outcome?? Want to share it with us?

I'm Supposn · Jan 25, 2017

joG said:
Why do you want to take away the unions' job from them and reduce employment by government action? If a job doesn't produce the marginal return to support a wage, why would you want to take the employers' money. They are creating jobs. You shouldn't want to punish them. If you want people to have a floor on. Earnings, you should pay and not the people creating the jobs. If voters want higher than deserved income it should come out of taxes.

The essence of personal and political opposition to the FMW rate.

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.
Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article, describes a remedy for USA’s chronic trade deficits of goods].

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

joG · Jan 25, 2017

I'm Supposn said:
The essence of personal and political opposition to the FMW rate.

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.
Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article, describes a remedy for USA’s chronic trade deficits of goods].

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

So your argument is the understanding the economics of minimum wages is a sign of lacking self-esteem and that those it doesn't affect don't care. Very interesting.

I'm Supposn · Jan 25, 2017

joG said:
So your argument is the understanding the economics of minimum wages is a sign of lacking self-esteem and that those it doesn't affect don't care. Very interesting.

JoG,anyone that doesn’t understand the federal minimum wage rate is much more the victim rather than a cause of the U.S. dollar’s loss of purchasing power, or believes it discriminates among USA enterprises, misunderstands the consequences of our legally mandated minimum wage rate.

Respectfully, Supposn

joG · Jan 25, 2017

I'm Supposn said:
JoG,anyone that doesn’t understand the federal minimum wage rate is much more the victim rather than a cause of the U.S. dollar’s loss of purchasing power, or believes it discriminates among USA enterprises, misunderstands the consequences of our legally mandated minimum wage rate.

Respectfully, Supposn

It wasn't so much the legality that I focused but the sub optimal nature of the instrument.

I'm Supposn · Jan 25, 2017

joG said:
It wasn't so much the legality that I focused but the sub optimal nature of the instrument.

Jog,your reference to “suboptimal” indicates your opinion of our federal minimum wage-rate’s less than a most superior method to benefit our working poor and our entire nation?
I agree with those advocating the rate be pegged and annually monitored to retain its purchasing power. You have other preferences and opinions.

I’m among those contending that the FMW rate’s of net economic and social benefit to our nation and it should be terminated only if it conflicts with a replacement that’s of greater net benefit.

Respectfully, Supposn

joG · Jan 25, 2017

I'm Supposn said:
Jog,your reference to “suboptimal” indicates your opinion of our federal minimum wage-rate’s less than a most superior method to benefit our working poor and our entire nation?
I agree with those advocating the rate be pegged and annually monitored to retain its purchasing power. You have other preferences and opinions.

I’m among those contending that the FMW rate’s of net economic and social benefit to our nation and it should be terminated only if it conflicts with a replacement that’s of greater net benefit.

Respectfully, Supposn

Actually, I was using the term "suboptimal " in its economic meaning. There it refers to a policy mix that produces less general welfare than could be achieved by other policy choices.

But I would go further than that, as you mention subsidies for persons that make less than you would prefer. You are proposing a preferences driven financial transfer of funds. For such payments it seems strange and ethically larcenous to coerce third parties pay to make you feel good. If you want to pay the poor then it should not be individual citizens' funds you consume but your own i.e. those of the tax payer, who voted for the redistribution. This seems less suboptimal than minimum wages. The better again would most likely be a guaranteed minimum income, because the society could then do away with social security, means testing and all the other costly bureaucracies.

DA60 · Jan 25, 2017

The CBO has shown that an increase in the minimum wage will cost jobs overall...which makes complete sense.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995

James972 · Jan 25, 2017

I'm Supposn said:
Jog,your reference to “suboptimal” indicates your opinion of our federal minimum wage-rate’s less than a most superior method to benefit our working poor and our entire nation?
I agree with those advocating the rate be pegged and annually monitored to retain its purchasing power. You have other preferences and opinions.

I’m among those contending that the FMW rate’s of net economic and social benefit to our nation and it should be terminated only if it conflicts with a replacement that’s of greater net benefit.

Respectfully, Supposn

the law of supply and demand say when you raise price of labor at gun point less labor is demanded. How is this a net benefit??
Why not put your cards on the table and tell us all the violent liberal interventions you want because as a liberal you don't understand Republican capitalism.