• 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.

I

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,819
Reaction score
281
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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
 
Last edited:
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
Click to expand...

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?

Many like to use the historic (inflation adjusted) high of 1968 but why not the initial value of 1938 or after the largest past increase (of 100%) in 1939 as the base rate?

Perhaps the federal MW should be based on some percentage (35% or 50%?) of the current US median wage or even the current FPL for a (2 or 3?) person household. Keep in mind that many states now have higher MW's than the federal MW and that is likely to continue to be the case.
 
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
Click to expand...

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

Many like to use the historic (inflation adjusted) high of 1968 but why not the initial value of 1938 or after the largest past increase (of 100%) in 1939 as the base rate?

Perhaps the federal MW should be based on some percentage (35% or 50%?) of the current US median wage or even the current FPL for a (2 or 3?) person household. Keep in mind that many states now have higher MW's than the federal MW and that is likely to continue to be the case.
Click to expand...

TTWTT78640, good question.

No nation’s economy has ever been damaged by increases of their lowest wage rates. But the federal minimum wage rate to the extent of its purchasing power is of net benefit to USA’s economic and social well-being.
The 1968 level was the best we’ve done and that was too low. Our nation would have benefitted if our minimum rate were much higher. Aiming for a gradual increase to $15 plus annual cost of living adjustments, (i.e. COLA) is not a radical plan.

I’m amiable to your suggestion that it be pegged to median-wage which is something more clearly understood and evaluated by the public.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
I'm Supposn said:
TTWTT78640, good question.

No nation’s economy has ever been damaged by increases of their lowest wage rates. But the federal minimum wage rate to the extent of its purchasing power is of net benefit to USA’s economic and social well-being.
The 1968 level was the best we’ve done and that was too low. Our nation would have benefitted if our minimum rate were much higher. Aiming for a gradual increase to $15 plus annual cost of living adjustments, (i.e. COLA) is not a radical plan.

I’m amiable to your suggestion that it be pegged to median-wage which is something more clearly understood and evaluated by the public.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

It appears that you are saying two entirely different things here: 1) that the MW should now be $15/hour (or $31K/year) and 2) that the median wage $46K/year (or $22/hour) is the basis for setting that MW amount. In other words, you wish the MW to more than double going from $15K/year, which is about 1/3 of the median wage, to $31K/year, which is almost 2/3 of the median wage.

I think that $15/hour is far too high, being over the FPL for a family of 5, and that the federal MW (basis) should not exceed the FPL for a family of 3 which is currently just over $20K/year or just under $10/hour.

https://aspe.hhs.gov/computations-2016-poverty-guidelines
 
Last edited:
I'm Supposn said:
TTWTT78640, good question.

No nation’s economy has ever been damaged by increases of their lowest wage rates. But the federal minimum wage rate to the extent of its purchasing power is of net benefit to USA’s economic and social well-being.
The 1968 level was the best we’ve done and that was too low. Our nation would have benefitted if our minimum rate were much higher. Aiming for a gradual increase to $15 plus annual cost of living adjustments, (i.e. COLA) is not a radical plan.

I’m amiable to your suggestion that it be pegged to median-wage which is something more clearly understood and evaluated by the public.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

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.​
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It appears that you are saying two entirely different things here: 1) that the MW should now be $15/hour (or $31K/year) and 2) that the median wage $46K/year (or $22/hour) is the basis for setting that MW amount. In other words, you wish the MW to more than double going from $15K/year, which is about 1/3 of the median wage, to $31K/year, which is almost 2/3 of the median wage.

I think that $15/hour is far too high, being over the FPL for a family of 5, and that the federal MW (basis) should not exceed the FPL for a family of 3 which is currently just over $20K/year or just under $10/hour.

https://aspe.hhs.gov/computations-2016-poverty-guidelines
Click to expand...

TTWTT78640, I’m amiable to your suggestion of the minimum rate being pegged to the median wage rate and you’re arguing with me? You suggested it be pegged at 35% or 50% of the median rate; I did not post agreement or disagreement with your proposed percentages.

I did agree that the median wage rate rather than the cost-price index number being a superior indicator of last year’s actual rates that were paid to employees. (Rather than the calculation of a “basket” of products that must be occasionally modified to reflect how typical USA families spend their incomes.) The median wage rate may be the more superior calculator of how the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar should be reflected by the minimum wage rate.

I consider THAT suggestion you posted as being more worthy for serious consideration. (I’m also amiable to your suggestion that we choose a proportion somewhere between 35% to 50%).

I’m opposed to the minimum wage being dependent upon the employee’s numbers of dependents. Regarding wage rates, employees should not by laws or government regulations gain advantages or suffer disadvantages relative to other employees due to numbers of dependents.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
joG said:
I think reduction of competitiveness and the loss of jobs more important than you seem to.
Click to expand...

I think the lack of equal protection of the law is more than important than you seem to, regarding unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
 
I'm Supposn said:
TTWTT78640, I’m amiable to your suggestion of the minimum rate being pegged to the median wage rate and you’re arguing with me? You suggested it be pegged at 35% or 50% of the median rate; I did not post agreement or disagreement with your proposed percentages.

I did agree that the median wage rate rather than the cost-price index number being a superior indicator of last year’s actual rates that were paid to employees. (Rather than the calculation of a “basket” of products that must be occasionally modified to reflect how typical USA families spend their incomes.) The median wage rate may be the more superior calculator of how the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar should be reflected by the minimum wage rate.

I consider THAT suggestion you posted as being more worthy for serious consideration. (I’m also amiable to your suggestion that we choose a proportion somewhere between 35% to 50%).

I’m opposed to the minimum wage being dependent upon the employee’s numbers of dependents. Regarding wage rates, employees should not by laws or government regulations gain advantages or suffer disadvantages relative to other employees due to numbers of dependents.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

Too late for that (bolded above) - the federal income tax code does that now.

I think that you misunderstood my intent when I referenced the FPL. I did not mean to imply that the MW should vary- only that a full-time MW job should pay anyone enough to support 2 to 3 people (at or above the FPL) yet not be over about 35% of the median wage.

One problem. that we now have, is that "welfare" (including all "safety net" support) should never exceed the amount of full-time job at the MW. Why get a MW job if you can make more than that by not working?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Too late for that (bolded above) - the federal income tax code does that now. ...
Click to expand...

I wrote, I’m opposed to the minimum wage being dependent upon the employee’s numbers of dependents. Regarding wage rates, employees should not by laws or government regulations gain advantages or suffer disadvantages relative to other employees due to numbers of dependents.

I referred to minimum wage and to wage rates. I made no references to taxes.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
I'm Supposn said:
I wrote, I’m opposed to the minimum wage being dependent upon the employee’s numbers of dependents. Regarding wage rates, employees should not by laws or government regulations gain advantages or suffer disadvantages relative to other employees due to numbers of dependents.

I referred to minimum wage and to wage rates. I made no references to taxes.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

Taxes on wages are laws (and/or regulations) that affect net wages - to ignore that fact is ridiculous. If employee A and B working side by side, for the same employer, at the same job, for the same gross wage receive different net pay amounts based on the number of their dependents then it is very hard to argue that they were paid the same. The justification most often used for increasing the MW is to make it large enough to support dependents (aka a "living wage") - to deny that is also ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
... I, think that you misunderstood my intent when I referenced the FPL. I did not mean to imply that the MW should vary- only that a full-time MW job should pay anyone enough to support 2 to 3 people (at or above the FPL) yet not be over about 35% of the median wage.
Click to expand...

TTWTT786400, you seem to be touching upon the concept of a “living wage” rather than a median wage. There’s no point to discussing that until we have a superior and sustainable minimum wage law.

ttwtt78640 said:
One problem. that we now have, is that "welfare" (including all "safety net" support) should never exceed the amount of full-time job at the MW. Why get a MW job if you can make more than that by not working?
Click to expand...

I don’t disagree but unfortunately in practice what are you proposing if the expenses necessary for a welfare beneficiary’s existence exceed the value of 40 hours at minimum rate? Do we tell them to drop dead, have the state take custody of their children so that we can permit them to be abused or killed at the taxpayers increased expense? Have you read some of the cases that do or do not reach family courts? I'm not presuming to suggest any remedies. These are truly Gordian knots.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
joG said:
I think reduction of competitiveness and the loss of jobs more important than you seem to.
Click to expand...

joG, due to the federal minimum wage rate, jobs that do not justify the minimum rate are not created and when the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar is reduced (and thus reducing the purchasing power of all wage rates including the minimum rate).
Some jobs paying approximately the minimum wage rate are created when the minimum rate’s purchasing power is permitted to be reduced. More such jobs are created if the economy is not doing too badly at that time.

The economic and social consequences of not adjusting the minimum rate with annual COLAs, (i.e. cost of living adjustments) our net detrimental to our nation. When we increase the minimum rate’s purchasing power it’s to our economic and social net benefits.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The consequences of eliminating the federal minimum wage rate:

Eliminating the FMW replaces a legally specific minimum bench mark with an uncertain and lesser bench mark that would be the most extreme possible reduction of the minimum rate‘s purchasing power during whatever national economic conditions then existing; (i.e. USA’s labor markets’ rates for the least qualified workers who are able to obtain employment for performing the least challenging tasks).

Although great numbers of jobs requiring performance of less challenging tasks would be created, but unless there’s a severe labor shortage, the labor pool for such less challenging jobs will exceed the numbers of such jobs. The market determined minimum wage rate will be drastically less than our current FMW rate’s purchasing power. The working poor’s situation is then similar to the historical experience of serfs or bonded servants.

The effective minimum wage rate, (regardless if that rate’s the legally mandated FMW rate or a market determined rate) effects all USA job rates. If the FMW rate’s eliminated, the purchasing power of all USA rates will be effected by the drastically less purchasing power of the market determined minimum rate.

Although there will be many more poor people employed, they’ll all be in dire need of additional public assistance; the purchasing powers of USA’s aggregate employees and their families will be reduced; enterprises dependent upon the financial conditions of USA population’s employee families will be detrimentally effected and all those directly or indirectly dependent upon those enterprises will be effected. All of this will be detrimental to government’s tax revenues while public assistance expenditures are increasing or our nation is suffering drastically more poverty.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
danielpalos said:
I think the lack of equal protection of the law is more than important than you seem to, regarding unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
Click to expand...

Then you should not want the government harming the citizens by introducing measures that will reduce efficiency and kill jobs.
 
I'm Supposn said:
TTWTT78640, good question.

No nation’s economy has ever been damaged by increases of their lowest wage rates. But the federal minimum wage rate to the extent of its purchasing power is of net benefit to USA’s economic and social well-being.
The 1968 level was the best we’ve done and that was too low. Our nation would have benefitted if our minimum rate were much higher. Aiming for a gradual increase to $15 plus annual cost of living adjustments, (i.e. COLA) is not a radical plan.

I’m amiable to your suggestion that it be pegged to median-wage which is something more clearly understood and evaluated by the public.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

So now you are saying that the minimum wage should soon be $15/hr.. Too high.

The present minimum wage is presently well over the poverty line. And frankly, that is all it should be, imo. The idea that flipping burgers automatically means you can live a lower middle class lifestyle is ridiculous, imo.

I am all for raising the MW each year by the national inflation rate.

But aiming for $15/hour anytime soon is a recipe for disaster, imo.


America already has a huge problem being competitive in the world. When you raise the MW drastically, then you will raise ALL wages drastically as there will be ripple effect throughout the economy. And to drastically raise ALL wages nationally with ZERO increase in production would drastically lower productivity...and that is one of the last things America needs for it's economy.

Plus, you will raise the price of goods significantly (you cannot significantly lower productivity and not have goods rise in price - not realistically possible). What are the very poor, the elderly and/or those on fixed incomes supposed to do as their meager incomes will buy them less and less goods/services? You will have to pour hundreds of billions more tax dollars into welfare programs to help them.

Basically, raising the minimum wage to $15 in a few years is like calling a guy into your office and telling him 'Your work is absolutely no better than it was last year. But we are giving you a 40% raise BUT we do not expect you to work the slightest bit harder or better from now on'. That company is on the road to ruin with an attitude like that.

And as the CBO has already established...raising the MW just to $10.10 an hour will undoubtedly cost the nation hundreds of thousands of jobs.

CBO report: Minimum wage hike could cost 500,000 jobs


People...NOTHING in life is free. There is no magic bullet. You cannot just raise the MW and make everything better. Life does not work that way - and neither does economics.
 
Last edited:
I want everyone to get $1000 an hour. That way everyone gets to be rich.
 
I'm Supposn said:
joG, due to the federal minimum wage rate, jobs that do not justify the minimum rate are not created and when the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar is reduced (and thus reducing the purchasing power of all wage rates including the minimum rate).
Some jobs paying approximately the minimum wage rate are created when the minimum rate’s purchasing power is permitted to be reduced. More such jobs are created if the economy is not doing too badly at that time.

The economic and social consequences of not adjusting the minimum rate with annual COLAs, (i.e. cost of living adjustments) our net detrimental to our nation. When we increase the minimum rate’s purchasing power it’s to our economic and social net benefits.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The consequences of eliminating the federal minimum wage rate:

Eliminating the FMW replaces a legally specific minimum bench mark with an uncertain and lesser bench mark that would be the most extreme possible reduction of the minimum rate‘s purchasing power during whatever national economic conditions then existing; (i.e. USA’s labor markets’ rates for the least qualified workers who are able to obtain employment for performing the least challenging tasks).

Although great numbers of jobs requiring performance of less challenging tasks would be created, but unless there’s a severe labor shortage, the labor pool for such less challenging jobs will exceed the numbers of such jobs. The market determined minimum wage rate will be drastically less than our current FMW rate’s purchasing power. The working poor’s situation is then similar to the historical experience of serfs or bonded servants.

The effective minimum wage rate, (regardless if that rate’s the legally mandated FMW rate or a market determined rate) effects all USA job rates. If the FMW rate’s eliminated, the purchasing power of all USA rates will be effected by the drastically less purchasing power of the market determined minimum rate.

Although there will be many more poor people employed, they’ll all be in dire need of additional public assistance; the purchasing powers of USA’s aggregate employees and their families will be reduced; enterprises dependent upon the financial conditions of USA population’s employee families will be detrimentally effected and all those directly or indirectly dependent upon those enterprises will be effected. All of this will be detrimental to government’s tax revenues while public assistance expenditures are increasing or our nation is suffering drastically more poverty.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

Oh, yes. The markets will adjust for the damage. But the society will not achieve the same level optimum and will as a rule have to live at a lower general welfare level.
 
joG said:
Then you should not want the government harming the citizens by introducing measures that will reduce efficiency and kill jobs.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand the economic paradigm; from my perspective, the fantastical right wing just wants the poor to work harder for less, so the rich can get richer faster.

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

A positive multiplier can help grow our economy.
 
joG said:
Oh, yes. The markets will adjust for the damage. But the society will not achieve the same level optimum and will as a rule have to live at a lower general welfare level.
Click to expand...

Why do you believe our Standard of living will be lower, with a higher minimum wage? That does not make sense.
 
Federal minimum wage rates’ effects upon product prices and employees’ purchasing powers:

The numbers of labor hours imbedded within the products prices differ but extremely few service products and no goods’ products prices are entirely due to hours of labor integral to products.
[I.E. the portion of a products price attributable to total labor hours integral within any product cannot exceed 100% but is generally a much lower fraction of 1.00].

[If the federal minim wage rate were repealed or not effectively enforced, theoretically a market determined minimum cost applicable to those employed for the least challenging jobs would then exist. Even slave labor is of some expense. Currently all the entire earnings of employees, (even those earning no more than the $7.25/Hr. minimum), cannot be entirely attributed only to the existence of a federal minimum wage rate.]

The portion of jobs’ wage rates due to the federal minimum wage rate differ for each job. For employees earning exactly the minimum rate, that portion is a fraction of less than one. That fraction’s gradually reduced as job rate’s approach the median rate. They become hardly perceivable and may be considered as effectively zero as they approach or go beyond the median wage rate.

The numbers of labor hours imbedded within the products prices differ but extremely few service products and no goods’ products prices are entirely due to hours of labor integral to a product’s price.
All of those factors of aggregate products’ costs are fractions less than one that when multiplied upon each other consequentially produce an answer much smaller than any one of the factors.

The portions of products’ costs due to various wage rates and the portions of various wage rates due to the federal minimum wage rate are all variable fractional factors that are less than one. Any increased prices they pay that due to inflation may be attributable to the federal minimum wage rate is significantly less that those minimum rate’s beneficial effects upon their employment derived incomes.

Employees and their dependents net benefit from the federal minimum wage rate. The working poor are (proportional to incomes), the greatest beneficiaries of the minimum wage rate. All persons that benefit from entities (such as commercial enterprises) that indirectly benefit due to employees’ improved financial conditions are also indirect beneficiaries of the federal minimum wage rate.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
We could be solving simple poverty in our fine capital Republic, on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States through unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed.

The fantastical right wing doesn't need to whine about a dearth of alleged morals from the Age of Iron anymore; we can have, fine capital morals for our fine form of Capitalism in our fine and glorious and First World, Republic.
 
danielpalos said:
You misunderstand the economic paradigm; from my perspective, the fantastical right wing just wants the poor to work harder for less, so the rich can get richer faster.

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

A positive multiplier can help grow our economy.
Click to expand...

Yep. Left wing populists will tell that story instead of worrying about the economic maths involved.
 
joG said:
Yep. Left wing populists will tell that story instead of worrying about the economic maths involved.
Click to expand...

simple algebra works; it doesn't require rocket science (and we have already been to the moon and back); only the fantastical right wing likes to learn how speculate, with math.

Why don't you give us the rest of the story?

You misunderstand the economic paradigm; from my perspective, the fantastical right wing just wants the poor to work harder for less, so the rich can get richer faster.

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

A positive 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:
simple algebra works; it doesn't require rocket science (and we have already been to the moon and back); only the fantastical right wing likes to learn how speculate, with math.

Why don't you give us the rest of the story?

You misunderstand the economic paradigm; from my perspective, the fantastical right wing just wants the poor to work harder for less, so the rich can get richer faster.

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

A positive 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...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom