Minimum wage rates do not determine wage differentials.

[Walt]

Flash, the federal minimum rate has never been increased without sufficient warning. Its annual increases have always been gradual as to not shock Labor markets.
Respectfully, Supposn

The normal way to do it would be to increase it by 50 cents each time, twice a year. It would take 8 years to get up to $15 at that rate. Nobody in their right mind would just double minimum wage overnight.

I wonder how marginal a business has to be to consider $7.25 to be barely possible. Big Mac in Australia are cheaper even though their minimum wage is about twice ours. The truth is minimum wage increases would add little to almost any business' cost.

 

[Supposn]

The normal way to do it would be to increase it by 50 cents each time, twice a year. It would take 8 years to get up to $15 at that rate. Nobody in their right mind would just double minimum wage overnight. …

Walt, dollars’ purchasing powers change. Rather than drafting laws in terms of finite dollars, (such as a half dollar), laws should be expressed in terms of something somewhat similar to the variably valued dollar.
Social Security benefits are pegged to a consumer price index.
The proposed House Resolution 582 was to be pegged to USA’s annually monitored aggregate wage rates.

I’m opposed to drafting laws in terms of half dollars. Annually monitoring works well; semi-annual monitoring would be more annoying to everyone.

I’m unaware of any member of the U.S. congress seriously proposing that the minimum wage should be “suddenly” increased to $15 per hour. That’s discussed by Republicans that wish to frighten children. The minimum wage rate has always been modified in a gradual manner. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

… I wonder how marginal a business has to be to consider $7.25 to be barely possible. Big Mac in Australia are cheaper even though their minimum wage is about twice ours. The truth is minimum wage increases would add little to almost any business' cost.

Walt:

Flash, small businesses, (unlike larger enterprises) cannot benefit from many “economies of scale”; but minimum wage rate laws are of no competitive disadvantages between any USA enterprises.
The small business you describe would likely be at no less competitive disadvantages if there were no minimum wage laws in the USA. …

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[CFM]

I understand your point, but $7.25 is barely possible and $15.00 would be impossible. Twice the amount does make a difference.

To double the pay includes doubling the employer FICA contribution. A $7.75 pay increase really means $8.35/hour increase to the employer ($7.75*7.625)

 

[CFM]

The normal way to do it would be to increase it by 50 cents each time, twice a year. It would take 8 years to get up to $15 at that rate. Nobody in their right mind would just double minimum wage overnight.

I wonder how marginal a business has to be to consider $7.25 to be barely possible. Big Mac in Australia are cheaper even though their minimum wage is about twice ours. The truth is minimum wage increases would add little to almost any business' cost.

Glad you agree those demanding to go to an immediate minimum overnight are out of their mind. In fact, anyone claiming there should be a minimum at all is out of their mind.

It's not just the minimum within that business that has to be considered. You used McDonalds, so I will. When suppliers to McDonalds now have to pay their employees more, McDonalds gets charged more. The further that chain goes back, the more the end user is affected.

 

[Supposn]

Glad you agree those demanding to go to an immediate minimum overnight are out of their mind. In fact, anyone claiming there should be a minimum at all is out of their mind. …

CFM, I’m unaware of any member of the U.S. congress seriously proposing that the minimum wage should be “suddenly” increased to $15 per hour.
$15 per hour is discussed by Republicans to frighten children; Democrats foolishly discuss dollars rather than purchasing power, because they disrespect USA voters. They wrongly believe USA voters cannot comprehend the concept of dollar’s purchasing power.

I don’t know which has more detrimental consequences, Republican’s sophism or Democrats contempt of USA voters’ intelligence?
The minimum wage rate has always been modified in a gradual manner and has been of net benefit to USA's economy.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

… It's not just the minimum within that business that has to be considered. You used McDonalds, so I will. When suppliers to McDonalds now have to pay their employees more, McDonalds gets charged more. The further that chain goes back, the more the end user is affected.

CFM, The minimum wage rate is not among the primary drivers of the U.S. dollar’s inflation:

There are comparatively few goods or service prices or costs that are entirely attributable to the prices of labor and the minimum wage rate does not affect all wage rates equally.
The minimum rate’s proportional effect upon a product’s price is dependent upon the proportion of the price that’s attributable to direct or indirect labor, and the proportional differences between those labor costs that are attributable to higher or lower wage rates.

That’s why the minimum wage rate has never been among the primary drivers of U.S. dollar’s inflation. Inflation occurs even when the minimum wage rate has not been increased.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[CFM]

CFM, I’m unaware of any member of the U.S. congress seriously proposing that the minimum wage should be “suddenly” increased to $15 per hour.
$15 per hour is discussed by Republicans to frighten children; Democrats foolishly discuss dollars rather than purchasing power, because they disrespect USA voters. They wrongly believe USA voters cannot comprehend the concept of dollar’s purchasing power.

I don’t know which has more detrimental consequences, Republican’s sophism or Democrats contempt of USA voters’ intelligence?
The minimum wage rate has always been modified in a gradual manner and has been of net benefit to USA's economy.
Respectfully, Supposn

Apparently 231 are. They proposed raising it, more than doubling it, over 5 years. To anyone being honest, that's sudden when considering that it would go up in 5 years 106.8% more than the current $7.25 in a time period only 7% of what it took to get to $7.25.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/18/house-passes-raise-the-wage-act-15-per-hour-minimum-wage-bill.html

I do know what's detrimental to society. It's people like you that think someone with skills so low that a minimum is in place because they don't have the ability to earn but very little..

I've yet to hear you say what those making the minimum now will do in order to warrant that 106.8% increase.

 

[CFM]

CFM, The minimum wage rate is not among the primary drivers of the U.S. dollar’s inflation:

There are comparatively few goods or service prices or costs that are entirely attributable to the prices of labor and the minimum wage rate does not affect all wage rates equally.
The minimum rate’s proportional effect upon a product’s price is dependent upon the proportion of the price that’s attributable to direct or indirect labor, and the proportional differences between those labor costs that are attributable to higher or lower wage rates.

That’s why the minimum wage rate has never been among the primary drivers of U.S. dollar’s inflation. Inflation occurs even when the minimum wage rate has not been increased.
Respectfully, Supposn

But it is and anyone being honest would admit it.

 

[Supposn]

Apparently 231 are. They proposed raising it, more than doubling it, over 5 years. To anyone being honest, that's sudden when considering that it would go up in 5 years 106.8% more than the current $7.25 in a time period only 7% of what it took to get to $7.25.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/18/house-passes-raise-the-wage-act-15-per-hour-minimum-wage-bill.html

I do know what's detrimental to society. It's people like you that think someone with skills so low that a minimum is in place because they don't have the ability to earn but very little..

I've yet to hear you say what those making the minimum now will do in order to warrant that 106.8% increase.

CFM, due to employers’ wage differential practices, minimum wage rate’s effects upon the lowest earning 40 percentile of USA’s employees range from critical to substantial portion of their wage rates.

You’re contending all those employees, (i.e. 40% of USA’s entire wage earners), none, or some, or most not earn their wages?
What of the remaining 60% of USA’s wage earners? Do all those higher wage rate workers earn their entire wages? Respectfully, Supposn

 

[CFM]

CFM, due to employers’ wage differential practices, minimum wage rate’s effects upon the lowest earning 40 percentile of USA’s employees range from critical to substantial portion of their wage rates.

You’re contending all those employees, (i.e. 40% of USA’s entire wage earners), none, or some, or most not earn their wages?
What of the remaining 60% of USA’s wage earners? Do all those higher wage rate workers earn their entire wages? Respectfully, Supposn

Far less than 40% work for minimum wage, dope. It's actually around 2% or 1.7 million However, despite what the percentage or number is, anyone working for the minimum that would get paid a more skill equivalent, lower wage if minimum wage didn't exist isn't earning the $7.25/hour the government requires employers to pay. Anyone with good sense would admit that someone getting $7.25/hour when what they offer in skills is only worth, let's say, $5/hour is not earning that $2.25. In other words, they're not getting for what they do but because the government forced their employer to pay it.

 

[Supposn]

Far less than 40% work for minimum wage, dope. …

CFM, I understand that there are some that do not know or understand minimum wage rate’s effects upon other wage rates, and there are others that ignore that to advance their agendas.
The numbers or proportions of employees that earn the precise minimum wage rate in effect where they work, are a less significant portion of all USA employees’ whose wage rates are affected by that minimum rate. Supposn

 

[countryboy]

It appears that English is not your native language. Get someone to explain Gonzomin's post to you.





Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Translation, "I have no fucking idea, I just repeat the issued talking points".

 

[Supposn]

… However, despite what the percentage or number [of employees' wage rates critically or substantially effected by the minimum raste?] is, anyone working for the minimum that would get paid a more skill equivalent, lower wage if minimum wage didn't exist isn't earning the $7.25/hour the government requires employers to pay. Anyone with good sense would admit that someone getting $7.25/hour when what they offer in skills is only worth, let's say, $5/hour is not earning that $2.25. In other words, they're not getting for what they do but because the government forced their employer to pay it.

CFM, can you untangle this portion of your sentence “…anyone working for the minimum that would get paid a more skill equivalent, lower wage if minimum wage didn't exist isn't earning the $7.25/hour the government requires employers to pay”. I suppose you meant to say something, but you failed to do it.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

… Anyone with good sense would admit that someone getting $7.25/hour when what they offer in skills is only worth, let's say, $5/hour is not earning that $2.25. In other words, they're not getting for what they do but because the government forced their employer to pay it.

CFM, are you contending that employers are choosing to pay greater than is appropriate and they're all altruistic, or contending that employers have other motives?
If employers are hiring and retaining employees that are not worthy of their wages, why are they doing it.
The government does not force enterprises to hire or retain employees, or any particular employee.
The government does prohibit employers from paying less than the legally applicable minimum wage rate; beyond that, the government does not generally set wage rates.

CFM, can’t you explain what you mean? Respectfully, Supposn

 

[CFM]

CFM, are you contending that employers are choosing to pay greater than is appropriate and they're all altruistic, or contending that employers have other motives?
If employers are hiring and retaining employees that are not worthy of their wages, why are they doing it.
The government does not force enterprises to hire or retain employees, or any particular employee.
The government does prohibit employers from paying less than the legally applicable minimum wage rate; beyond that, the government does not generally set wage rates.

CFM, can’t you explain what you mean? Respectfully, Supposn

The government forces employers to pay employees more than the skills to do those jobs are worth. Those jobs may be necessary but that doesn't mean they're worth what the government sets as the minimum someone must be paid. If you can't understand that, that's your problem. Keep working your minimum wage job and realize that you're not getting paid what your actually worth but what the government has to force someone to pay you.

 

[CFM]

CFM, can you untangle this portion of your sentence “…anyone working for the minimum that would get paid a more skill equivalent, lower wage if minimum wage didn't exist isn't earning the $7.25/hour the government requires employers to pay”. I suppose you meant to say something, but you failed to do it.
Respectfully, Supposn

Are you contending you're too stupid to understand simple English?

Can't you explain what you mean?

 

[CFM]

CFM, I understand that there are some that do not know or understand minimum wage rate’s effects upon other wage rates, and there are others that ignore that to advance their agendas.
The numbers or proportions of employees that earn the precise minimum wage rate in effect where they work, are a less significant portion of all USA employees’ whose wage rates are affected by that minimum rate. Supposn

Cherry picking responses, huh?

 

[rjhenn]

CFM, are you contending that employers are choosing to pay greater than is appropriate and they're all altruistic, or contending that employers have other motives?
If employers are hiring and retaining employees that are not worthy of their wages, why are they doing it.
The government does not force enterprises to hire or retain employees, or any particular employee.
The government does prohibit employers from paying less than the legally applicable minimum wage rate; beyond that, the government does not generally set wage rates.

CFM, can’t you explain what you mean? Respectfully, Supposn

CFM doesn't know what she means. She's totally ignorant of the basic reality that the economy is driven by consumer spending. Thus paying lower level employees more drives economic growth. And, as you've pointed out, most of her arguments are designed to scare children.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Supposn]

The government forces employers to pay employees more than the skills to do those jobs are worth. Those jobs may be necessary but that doesn't mean they're worth what the government sets as the minimum someone must be paid. If you can't understand that, that's your problem. Keep working your minimum wage job and realize that you're not getting paid what your actually worth but what the government has to force someone to pay you.

CFM, the federal Fair labor Standards Act does not force an enterprise to hire employees, does not choose who employers should or should not hire, or require employers to retain any individual employee on their enterprises' payrolls. It does prohibit paying employees less than the applicable federal minimum wage rate.

Employers who believe a job’s benefit to their enterprise doesn’t justify the minimum wage rate they’re paying, are not prohibited from removing the worker from their enterprise’s payroll.
If you cannot understand that, that's your problem. Respectfully, Supposn