Consequences of eliminating the federal minimum wage.
- Thread starter Supposn
- Start date
Rich people don't work entry level jobs, why should they worry?
Buggy whip jobs got eliminated too
Educating yourself leads to less scary shit
Robo, I’m pleased that Wendy’s is attempting to increase their automation. Automation has always been a net benefit to USA’s economy. Nation’s where human effort has less value, (i.e. where the purchasing power of the median wage is less), are the poorest of nations.
The purchasing power of the federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate is of some support for ALL other USA wage and salary rates which are indicated by the median wage rate’s purchasing power.
I have read claims that the U.S. Congressional Budget office’s study reported that implied they had a negative opinion regarding increasing the federal minimum wage and there after retaining its purchasing power. I perused their report and learned that was not true.
Nothing regarding the National Bureau of Economic Research, (NBER) study is available to me. My experience regarding third party evaluations of the CBO’s conclusions make me hesitant to accept anyone’s evaluation of the NBER’s conclusions.
Respectfully, Supposn
Robo
Verified User
Then according to your formula, all we have to do is raise the minimum wage to $1,000 per-hour and we’ll be the wealthiest nation in the history of earth and every time our wealth slips a little, just pump up the minimum wage another $20.00 an hour or so right? You have the leftist magical formula for endless wealth for our nation, correct?
So, to interpret, you have no evidence that raising the minimum wage has no negative effect on minimum wage jobs, right? You have no actual evidence that raising the minimum wage is actually a positive for the economy except your skepticism about the CBO actually saying raising the minimum wage would cost jobs even though major news organizations actually reported that as fact, right? You’re saying the CBO lied and you know better, right?
Rich people don't work entry level jobs, why should they worry?
You do
Robo
Verified User
Do what?
Robo
Verified User
65 years ago.
Damn gramps sorry I ragged on you
Robo, in response to the following ... I’m pleased that Wendy’s is attempting to increase their automation. Automation has always been a net benefit to USA’s economy. Nation’s where human effort has less value, (i.e. where the purchasing power of the median wage is less), are the poorest of nations. The purchasing power of the federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate is of some support for ALL other USA wage and salary rates which are indicated by the median wage rate’s purchasing power.
Your non-germane response was:
Robo, it’s reasonable to assume that any sudden radical change of the federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate would upset USA’s labor markets and economy; modifications of the FMW rate has always been and should always be enacted gradually.
I would suppose if we should ever attempt to attain an EXCESSIVE minimum rate in gradual incremental stages, we’d after some incremental step encounter little or no economic benefit due to the last rate increase. This is a theoretical scenario; never has any nation’s economy suffered due to the nation’s excessive minimum or median wage rate.
When there’s no perceivable benefit due to the last increase of the FMW rate, we should logically cease increasing that rate beyond increases to retain its purchasing power. The simplest manner of retaining the rate’s purchasing power would be to adjust it annually to be kept abreast with a price-cost index number.
The question should not be an eventual finite FMW rate, but rather why are we not increasing the rate’s purchasing power until further increases would not be net beneficial to our economy?
Robo, you’re very wrong.
Your faulty interpretations of my posts are at best due to your duplicity but I believe they’re due more to you actually misunderstanding written English. I do not suppose my prose to be superior but improving upon them would not help you better understand what’s posted.
Your responses exhaust me but I wish you well.
Supposn
Your non-germane response was:
Robo, it’s reasonable to assume that any sudden radical change of the federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate would upset USA’s labor markets and economy; modifications of the FMW rate has always been and should always be enacted gradually.
I would suppose if we should ever attempt to attain an EXCESSIVE minimum rate in gradual incremental stages, we’d after some incremental step encounter little or no economic benefit due to the last rate increase. This is a theoretical scenario; never has any nation’s economy suffered due to the nation’s excessive minimum or median wage rate.
When there’s no perceivable benefit due to the last increase of the FMW rate, we should logically cease increasing that rate beyond increases to retain its purchasing power. The simplest manner of retaining the rate’s purchasing power would be to adjust it annually to be kept abreast with a price-cost index number.
The question should not be an eventual finite FMW rate, but rather why are we not increasing the rate’s purchasing power until further increases would not be net beneficial to our economy?
Robo, you’re very wrong.
Your faulty interpretations of my posts are at best due to your duplicity but I believe they’re due more to you actually misunderstanding written English. I do not suppose my prose to be superior but improving upon them would not help you better understand what’s posted.
Your responses exhaust me but I wish you well.
Supposn
Robo
Verified User
In my opinion, it’s much more reasonable with honest interpretation of the Constitution to opine that a FMW is unconstitutional and any decision about a minimum wage is by authority of the 10th amendment of our Bill Of Rights the power of State government that’s closer to the people whereby any negative or positive consequences thereof a MW would more readily be dealt with by the people at the polls. A FMW mandates no State can reject a MW. That’s central “socialist” government, only promoted by socialist.
The beauty of our Bill Of Rights and the 10th amendment in particular is that if loyally observed, what you “suppose” in that paragraph would be apparently obvious in a State by State laboratory as intended by the founders.
All of that should be dealt with by State government in accordance with the 10th amendment to our Constitution, then you’d actually have some real evidence of the negative or positive consequences of the MW. Also businesses and the people could vote with their feet and locate where they found the best conditions for their personal and business economy.
Robo
Verified User
Your opinions are still irrelevant.
As is you anger over dark people getting a raise
Robo
Verified User
Who would expect you to define my anger being actually in opposition to BIG socialist central government and it's unconstitutional quest to corrupt every aspect of my country? Surely not I!
The minimum wage power belongs to the States respectively, or to the people and not the corrupt bastards in Washington D.C..
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
You are trying to conflate two things. Your title says increase in minimum wage doesn't cost jobs. Then you say it is a net benefit to the economy. They are two separate things. Linked for sure but not the same.
Who would expect you to define my anger being actually in opposition to BIG socialist central government and it's unconstitutional quest to corrupt every aspect of my country? Surely not I!
The minimum wage power belongs to the States respectively, or to the people and not the corrupt bastards in Washington D.C..
I for raising it a little every few years
I do think it's better done by states
Non lawyer going ballistic on what the imagine as unconstitutional
Is the height of irrelevance
Robo
Verified User
The "height of irrelevance" is actually citizens too lazy and too apathetic and too partisan brainwashed to read and honestly accept the constitutional rule of law and serve it instead of the BIG government bastards and lawyers that corrupt it and serving their own willful stupidity. Those are irrelevant to the preservation of liberty.
