Why the minimum wage does not reduce jobs.

S

Supposn

Verified User
Why the minimum wage does not reduce jobs.

Job creations were generally not due to altruistic motives; enterprises speculated that there would be a favorable cost-benefit to justify those jobs. After each of the federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate increases, employers continued to perceive favorable cost-benefits for almost all of their jobs.

Some eliminated jobs were replaced by automation. Automation, (i.e. increasing production at lesser per/unit cost) has always been to our economic benefit.
The numbers of jobs made extinct due to computers were replaced by jobs in a completely new industry. Previously we did not attempt to digest and process huge volumes of data that people are now handling; those are additional jobs.

Each increase of the FMW rate to some extent induced increased the purchasing powers for ALL USA wages and salaries thus to some extent our economy was consequently better than otherwise; (otherwise being if the FMW rate had not been increased).
Due to our more (than otherwise) improved better than otherwise economy, USA’s economy had supported more (than otherwise) numbers jobs with wage rates that are more than otherwise. [Otherwise being if the purchasing power of the FMW rate is reduced or if it’s eliminated.]

That’s why libertarians predicted increases of unemployment due to each proposed FMW rate increase did not meet their expectations; those enacted increases have always been to our net economic benefit.

Refer to the thread http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...ences-of-eliminating-the-federal-minimum-wage
Respectfully, Supposn
 
they just lie so they can level the American worker with the third world.


they lie about nearly everything now


they are at maximum lie factor
 
Supposn said:
Why the minimum wage does not reduce jobs.

Job creations were generally not due to altruistic motives; enterprises speculated that there would be a favorable cost-benefit to justify those jobs. After each of the federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate increases, employers continued to perceive favorable cost-benefits for almost all of their jobs.

Some eliminated jobs were replaced by automation. Automation, (i.e. increasing production at lesser per/unit cost) has always been to our economic benefit.
The numbers of jobs made extinct due to computers were replaced by jobs in a completely new industry. Previously we did not attempt to digest and process huge volumes of data that people are now handling; those are additional jobs.

Each increase of the FMW rate to some extent induced increased the purchasing powers for ALL USA wages and salaries thus to some extent our economy was consequently better than otherwise; (otherwise being if the FMW rate had not been increased).
Due to our more (than otherwise) improved better than otherwise economy, USA’s economy had supported more (than otherwise) numbers jobs with wage rates that are more than otherwise. [Otherwise being if the purchasing power of the FMW rate is reduced or if it’s eliminated.]

That’s why libertarians predicted increases of unemployment due to each proposed FMW rate increase did not meet their expectations; those enacted increases have always been to our net economic benefit.

Refer to the thread http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...ences-of-eliminating-the-federal-minimum-wage
Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

The CBO study said raising the minimum wage to $10.10 would cost 500,000 jobs. Are they lying or wrong?
 
[Refer to “Fact Sheet #32: Youth Minimum Wage - Fair Labor Standards Act”,
http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs32.pdf ].

The 1996 Amendments to the FLSA allow employers to pay a youth minimum wage of not less than $4.25 an hour to employees who are under 20 years of age during the first 90 consecutive calendar days after initial employment.

This provision of law encourages age preference for youth and thus indirectly is of some disadvantage to many others.
The law’s explicitly drafted to prohibit displacement of any or all others while enable hiring youths at cheaper wage rates; but I think it will be difficult to enforce those safe guards.

I don’t believe that the application of the $4.25 rate is applicable for each individual but affiliated employers of the same worker. If that’s not the case, I foresee youths working directly for a series of employers but performing tasks at sub-minimum wage rates for the same group of affiliated enterprises.

Eliminating the federal minimum wage rate to reduce youths' high rate of unemployment would
to some extent reduce the purchasing power of all wages and salary earners and increase poverty among their families.
Thus far I suspect this enabling of sub-minimum rates for youths will to some extent undermine all wages and it will particularly reduce median wage rates for youths but I doubt if has or will significantly decreased unemployment rates of youths.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
cawacko said:
The CBO study said raising the minimum wage to $10.10 would cost 500,000 jobs. Are they lying or wrong?
Click to expand...


Cawacko

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

Effects of the $10.10 Option on Employment and Income

Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects (see the table below). As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBO’s assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers.

Many more low-wage workers would see an increase in their earnings. Of those workers who will earn up to $10.10 under current law, most—about 16.5 million, according to CBO’s estimates—would have higher earnings during an average week in the second half of 2016 if the $10.10 option was implemented. Some of the people earning slightly more than $10.10 would also have higher earnings under that option, for reasons discussed below. Further, a few higher-wage workers would owe their jobs and increased earnings to the heightened demand for goods and services that would result from the minimum-wage increase.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Cawacko, I interpret this Congressional Budget Office’s study to generally agreeing that increasing the federal minimum wage rate and thereafter retaining its purchasing power would be to our net economic advantage.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
your the one who is quoting it asshole.

go get the study and lets just see what it says in context.


You don't like in context huh
 
Supposn said:
Cawacko

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

Effects of the $10.10 Option on Employment and Income

Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects (see the table below). As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBO’s assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers.

Many more low-wage workers would see an increase in their earnings. Of those workers who will earn up to $10.10 under current law, most—about 16.5 million, according to CBO’s estimates—would have higher earnings during an average week in the second half of 2016 if the $10.10 option was implemented. Some of the people earning slightly more than $10.10 would also have higher earnings under that option, for reasons discussed below. Further, a few higher-wage workers would owe their jobs and increased earnings to the heightened demand for goods and services that would result from the minimum-wage increase.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Cawacko, I interpret this Congressional Budget Office’s study to generally agreeing that increasing the federal minimum wage rate and thereafter retaining its purchasing power would be to our net economic advantage.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

The subject line of your thread says the minimum wage does not reduce jobs. Now you just posted the study that says raising the minimum wage will cost 500K jobs. Do you not the see the contradiction there?
 
http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44995-MinimumWage.pdf
Changes in the Annual Income of Families. An increase in
the minimum wage would not only affect family income
by changing workers’ earnings. It would also result in
losses in income for business owners, decreases in real
income for many people because of increases in prices,
and increases in some people’s income generated by
higher demand for goods and services. To determine the
economywide effect on total income, CBO subtracted
the output lost because of the decline in employment
from the output gained because of the increase in the
aggregate demand for goods and services. On balance, the
total amount of real income in the economy would
increase by $2 billion in 2016 under the $10.10 option,
CBO projects, and by $1 billion under the $9.00 option.
In CBO’s estimation, overall real income would increase
for families with income less than six times the poverty
threshold but would decrease for higher-income families,
because both the income losses for business owners and
the increase in prices would have the greatest effects on
those higher-income families. In CBO’s estimation,
about 1 percent of the reduction in real income from
those two factors would fall on people living in families
whose income was below the poverty threshold, whereas
about 70 percent would fall on people living in families
whose income was more than six times the poverty
threshold.
CBO used those estimates of the change in income for
families to project how many families would move into
and out of poverty.21 Following the official definition of
poverty, CBO did not consider the effects of a minimumwage
increase on taxes, tax credits, or noncash transfer
payments in its calculations. (CBO has not analyzed the
effects of minimum-wage increases on a measure of
income that accounts for taxes, tax credits, or noncash
transfers.) Some of those effects would partly offset the
gain to families from a higher minimum wage. For example,
workers who received higher wages because of an
increase in the minimum wage would pay more payroll
taxes (though they would later be eligible for more Social
Security benefits), and some of their families would be
eligible to receive less in noncash means-tested benefits,
such as those provided by SNAP. The amount of the
EITC received by workers in poor families would increase
in some cases and decrease in others, depending on each
worker’s earnings and family income.
Uncertainty in the Estimates
There is considerable uncertainty about the effects of
minimum-wage increases on family income. Some of the
sources of uncertainty are the same as those in CBO’s
analysis of employment; they involve wage growth, the
elasticity of employment with respect to the change in the
minimum wage, and the magnitude of the macroeconomic
response that would result from the redistribution
of income. However, there are some additional
sources of uncertainty in the analysis of the options’
effects on family income. They include the following:
 The effect on total income and on the income of
families with different amounts of income is uncertain
because of various factors, including how much
spending varies by family income, the extent to which
people avoid sharp changes in consumption when
their income changes, the relative magnitudes of


It is uncertain how the reduction in employment
resulting from a minimum-wage increase would be
distributed among families during 2016. In its
analysis, CBO distributed that employment reduction
among families on the basis of the age and the wages
under current law of the workers who live in those
families. Alternative distributions would produce
different effects on family income and poverty.
 The effect of a higher minimum wage on the behavior
of other people who live in low-wage workers’ families
is uncertain. For example, someone in that situation
might work fewer hours in response to a spouse’s
higher earnings—or more hours, if the spouse lost
employment as a result of the higher minimum wage.
In general, such responses would probably offset to
some extent the effects of the options on low-wage
workers’ family income.
 
On short my small brianed fool .... yes jobs will be ended.

many of them will be the ones people have to work three of to just survive with virtually no time off.


less jobs better income.


the poor will be able to have a fucking life.

I'm sure that makes you sad
 
evince said:
On short my small brianed fool .... yes jobs will be ended.

many of them will be the ones people have to work three of to just survive with virtually no time off.


less jobs better income.


the poor will be able to have a fucking life.

I'm sure that makes you sad
Click to expand...

Poor people losing jobs will help them. Yes, excellent analysis Desh.
 
no more working three jobs for a lot less leaving you no time in the day to be a human


two people working three jobs to have a family would be able to work two jobs and have a better more stable family.

God forbid some men and women might actually just stay home with the kids.



two people six jobs


turns into

two people two jobs and a life.


and they wont be fucking crying about those 4 jobs no longer there
 
evince said:
no more working three jobs for a lot less leaving you no time in the day to be a human


two people working three jobs to have a family would be able to work two jobs and have a better more stable family.

God forbid some men and women might actually just stay home with the kids.



two people six jobs


turns into

two people two jobs and a life.


and they wont be fucking crying about those 4 jobs no longer there
Click to expand...

where in the study does it state the job losses will go to those who hold multiple jobs?
 
Not all jobs are good jobs huh asshole


your fucks want workers desperate



tell us what jobs its says will be lost you fucking idiot
 
evince said:
Not all jobs are good jobs huh asshole


your fucks want workers desperate



tell us what jobs its says will be lost you fucking idiot
Click to expand...

so you're trying to justify the losing of 500K jobs by saying not all jobs are good jobs and making an assumption with nothing to back it up that the jobs that will be lost will be ones held by people with multiple jobs.
 
Family Income
For most families with low-wage workers, a higher minimum
wage boosts family income, because of the increase
in earnings that many of those workers (including those
whose wages were slightly above the new minimum)
receive. A much smaller number of low-wage workers
become jobless and therefore experience a decline in
earnings because of the higher minimum wage.
For families with low-wage workers, the effect of a higher
minimum wage depends on how many such workers are
in a family, whether those workers become jobless (and, if
so, for how long), and whether there are other changes in
family income. For instance, the decline in income from
losing a job can be offset in part by increases in nonlabor
income, such as unemployment compensation, or by
increases in the work of other family members.
For business owners, family income (including income
for shareholders) falls to the extent that firms’ profits are
reduced. In addition, real family income for many people
tends to fall a bit, because the increase in prices of goods
and services reduces families’ purchasing power.
The effects on total national income of an increase in the
minimum wage differ in the long term and in the short
term. In the long term, the key determinant of the
nation’s output and income is the size and quality of the
workforce, the stock of productive capital (such as factories
and computers), and the efficiency with which workers
and capital are used to produce goods and services
(known as total factor productivity). Raising the minimum
wage probably reduces employment, in CBO’s
assessment. In the long term, that reduction in the workforce
lowers the nation’s output and income a little,
which means that the income losses of some people are
slightly larger than the income gains of others. In the
short term, by contrast, the nation’s output and income
can deviate from the amounts that would typically arise
from a given workforce, capital stock, and productivity in
response to changes in the economywide demand for
goods and services. Raising the minimum wage increases
that demand, in CBO’s assessment, because the families
that experience increases in income tend to raise their
consumption more than the families that experience
decreases in income tend to reduce their consumption. In
the short term, that increase in demand raises the nation’s
output and income slightly, which means that the income
losses of some people are slightly smaller than the income
gains of others.
CBO’s Findings About Employment and
Family Income
CBO estimated the effects on employment and family
income of both the $10.10 option and the $9.00 option
for raising the federal minimum wage.9 CBO’s estimates
are for the second half of 2016 because that would be the
point at which the minimum wage reached $10.10 under
the first option and $9.00 under the second. In either
case, the increase in the minimum wage would have two
principal effects on low-wage workers: The large majority
would have higher wages and family income, but a much
smaller group would be jobless and have much lower
family income. Once the other changes in income were
taken into account, families whose income would be
below six times the poverty threshold under current law
would see a small increase in income, on net, and families
whose income would be higher under current law would
see reductions in income, on net. In addition, in either
case, higher-wage workers would see a small increase in
the number of jobs.
Increases in the minimum wage would raise the wages
not only for many workers who would otherwise have
earned less than the new minimum but also for some
workers who would otherwise have earned slightly more
than the new minimum, as discussed above. CBO’s analysis
focused on workers who are projected to earn less
than $11.50 per hour in 2016 under current law (who, in
this report, are generally referred to as low-wage workers).
People with certain characteristics are more likely to be in
that group and are therefore more likely to be affected by
increases in the minimum wage like those that CBO
people earning such wages will be at least 20 years old,
56 percent will be female, and 91 percent will not have
attained a bachelor’s degree, CBO estimates (see Table 2).
 
Look at the charts at that CBO direct link asshole.


the people who will se income decline are the wealthy end of the spectrum
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top