Raise the Minimum Wage

False. It said the increase will take place for 9.00 without much doubt. Oh, and this is a different report. The other file was different. I find it funny that dozens of sites have quoted the COB report you provided in defense of a wage hike

Anyways, both wage increases will lift more people out of poverty than in it. The US GDP increase will be billions. The middle class will rise in income. Finnally...

Almost all the jobs lost will only be minimum wage (Hence, will be outweighed by long term job growth)

"Many government workers will owe their jobs to the wage hike" - CBO report

BTW, the congressional research service is much more reliable than the CBO report. There job is to write 100 page documents. How long was the CBO one? 2 pages?

 

GDP will theoretically not change

remember all these business are going to just absorb these costs and not raise price.

This smells of bubble...........

CBO report is 43 pages

Of course they quote the parts of the CBO reports they like...........and leave out that nasty job loss figure.
all the other numbers you quoted are in that report...............minus the job loss

its the old ends justify the means philosophy they are famous for

 

Probably why most people who make the minimum wage aren't adults.

Well, not fully grown adults, anyway...

- - - Updated - - -

CRS is merely made up of members of congress. How you believe they are more reliable than the economist of the CBO is beyond me...

 

CRS members are not congressman. They are an agency designed for the sole purpose of providing congress with 100% accurate and non-partisan information. They are liable, as in employees, for any false information on those reports. BTW, the CRS is a part of the Library of Congress, which also services the houses.

 

No, it doesn't. It says that central estimates would likely reduce the amount of employment by 500,000 workers by the second half of 2016 under the $10.10 (p. 9), while the $9.00 option would reduce the jobs by 100,000. Also, the increases in the real incomes of the 31 million people making below $11.50 would be offset by a similar margin by a reduction in real earnings, which would arrive in the form of decreases in earnings for the jobless, reduction in earnings for business owners and the increases in the price of goods and services, thus reducing real purchasing power (p. 10).

Are you reading the report, or are you just skimming through it.

 

Which it goes on to say will increase jobs in the long term, lift 300,000 from poverty, and add around 21 billion to the US economy. Yes, I've read this one, and a hundred other publications. As dreadful as Cato and Rand Paul.

 

There is no mention about the 21 billion added to the US economy. You're probably getting that from a different report, but lets discuss your inaccuracies in the CBO report first.

On net, there is a $17 billion reduction in real earnings, which greatly offsets the $12 billion in real earnings accrued by the raises in income for people one and three times below the poverty level (p. 11).

If you're skimming more than you should be reading, I don't see the point in your participation in these discussions at all, really.

 

Okay. My Tweeter lied. I should have verified.

 

And remember that 15 an hour only gets to 15 in 2021. where they already project it to only be worth 13

 

The bill was approved by a bare-majority 21-12 vote and sent to the Assembly for consideration. Its only under consideration.

 

Perhaps where you live that might be true; but not where I live.

 

We live in the same state...

 

I don't live in NYC.

 

We have the same minimum wage. Are you suggesting that there are more adults working for $8 an hour than in NYC?

Somehow, I don't think that is likely...

 

I have to agree with him partially. In a lot of areas (Detroit), most minimum wage workers are adults. Remember that whole "bar people over 40 from minimum wage jobs" movement? Teens accused older people who lost their jobs as stealing theirs, during the recession. The demographics do seem to be shifting to the younger generation again though.

 

Minimum wage should be regional to reflect the cost of living/housing.


Moi

Tax
They get a free ride as 's hat.​

 

Normally I would agree, but prices are not always national, which leads to screwy inflation rates. The goal is to cash in on consumption rates now, before the economy inflates again. But yeah, I mostly agree with you here. Unfortunately, the only ones who actually have and will raise wages past 8$, which most states refuse to budge past, is the USFG.

 

I don't know about if there are more, but where I live, many people making minimum wage are adults; some are single parents; some are those are elderly who cannot make it alone on social security and some who cannot find any other work and this is all they could find.

 

Better yet, eliminate the federal minimum wage and let the states work it out.

 

It's redistribution. 'Circulation' assumes it gets back to where it came from. It never does.

 

If you have minimum skills and minimum intelligence, you will be paid the bare minimum. End of story.

 

Taxcutter says:
As it should be.

 

In that case allow me to reiterate the scenario that plays out at every workplace when you institute a minimum wage that has people working for less than the minimum:

So the employer now has some workers that he cannot legally pay what he pays them. Now he must make the choice, for each worker, to lay them off or pay them minimum wage. He has to weigh the amount he saves from not paying their wages against how much revenue he'll lose from a loss in productivity from letting that worker go. There's two extremes that come out of this scenario: one is, the employer decides he can't afford to pay anyone off, so he must raise everyone to minimum wage and take the hit himself. The other extreme is, the employer decides he doesn't need any of the workers who work for less than minimum and lays them all off, so the workers take the hit. In between, you have the varying degrees between based on each firm's situation. Some people will be laid off, some will have their wages raised - in many cases some at the low end will be laid off and their wages will be put towards paying other workers, that the employer doesn't want to fire, minimum wage to minimize or eliminate the cost to himself. So you will have varying degrees of it, but one way or the other either the employees or the employer is going to take a net hit unless the money saved from laying off some workers = the amount needed to pay other workers minimum wage, in which case the net effect is nothing (note of course that throughout all of this any calculation involves the potential loss/gain in productivity and thus revenue from raising someone's wage or laying them off).

This is why I say all you're doing is moving money around. Some people end up with more money, some people end up with less money, some people end up with no jobs. All you're doing is shifting the money around and I don't understand why anyone thinks that the people the money was redistributed to are more deserving of it than the people who would have had it in the first place.

 

Too much logic in this post...............please stop

all kidding aside ..........you get it

 

Me getting paid minimum wage, unless I'm actually worth minimum wage, comes at a cost to someone else. It means I'm being paid more than I'm worth and that means someone, either the employer or a potential employee (that would have been hired if there were no minimum wage), has to take the hit on the difference.