- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Govt Assistance and Minimum Wage
Posted on 2/19/18 at 1:46 am to Ebbandflow
Posted on 2/19/18 at 1:46 am to Ebbandflow
quote:
Yeah because unions never helped anyone
Unions are WAY overrated when it comes to the "good" they did for workers.
0
Posted on 2/19/18 at 1:46 am to Ebbandflow
Have you figured out how to read those graphs and tables in your link yet? Or are you still depending in the NYT author to tell you what they mean?
Seriously dude.... You are getting arse raped right now. Just log off and go to bed.
Seriously dude.... You are getting arse raped right now. Just log off and go to bed.
Posted on 2/19/18 at 1:47 am to Ebbandflow
quote:
And how many will rise above the poverty line?
Probably none since prices will rise and they'll lose government benefits
So they'll cut hours to keep benefits
Posted on 2/19/18 at 1:47 am to beerJeep
quote:
You are getting arse raped right now.
It's cringeworthy
Posted on 2/19/18 at 1:48 am to TexasTiger86
Not to mention that the other study said the same mother fricking thing. That min wage workers would lose jobs and hours and have a net loss of income.
It just said it in a much gentler and Kinder way. A way that only Berkeley could spin.
It just said it in a much gentler and Kinder way. A way that only Berkeley could spin.
Posted on 2/19/18 at 1:55 am to beerJeep
"1Adjusted for inflation, the federal minimum wage peaked in 1968 at $8.68 (in 2016 dollars). Since it was last raised in 2009, to the current $7.25 per hour, the federal minimum has lost about 9.6% of its purchasing power to inflation. Back in 2015, The Economist estimated that, given how rich the U.S. is and the pattern among other advanced economies in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, “one would expect America … to pay a minimum wage around $12 an hour.”
2Less than half (45%) of the 2.6 million hourly workers who were at or below the federal minimum in 2015 were ages 16 to 24. An additional 23.3% are ages 25 to 34, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics; both shares have stayed more or less constant over the past decade. That 2.6 million represents less than 2% of all wage and salary workers. (See more about the demographics of minimum-wage workers.)"
Pew Research Center
Once the increases and decreases in income for all workers are taken into account, overall real income would rise by $1 billion.
Real income would increase, on net, by about $1 billion for families whose income will be below the poverty threshold under current law, boosting their average family income by about 1 percent and moving about 300,000 people, on net, above the poverty threshold.
Families whose income would have been between one and three times the poverty threshold would receive, on net, $3 billion in additional real income. About $1 billion, on net, would go to families whose income would have been between three and six times the poverty threshold.
Real income would decrease, on net, by $4 billion for families whose income would otherwise have been six times the poverty threshold or more, lowering their average family income by about 0.1 percent.
2Less than half (45%) of the 2.6 million hourly workers who were at or below the federal minimum in 2015 were ages 16 to 24. An additional 23.3% are ages 25 to 34, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics; both shares have stayed more or less constant over the past decade. That 2.6 million represents less than 2% of all wage and salary workers. (See more about the demographics of minimum-wage workers.)"
Pew Research Center
Once the increases and decreases in income for all workers are taken into account, overall real income would rise by $1 billion.
Real income would increase, on net, by about $1 billion for families whose income will be below the poverty threshold under current law, boosting their average family income by about 1 percent and moving about 300,000 people, on net, above the poverty threshold.
Families whose income would have been between one and three times the poverty threshold would receive, on net, $3 billion in additional real income. About $1 billion, on net, would go to families whose income would have been between three and six times the poverty threshold.
Real income would decrease, on net, by $4 billion for families whose income would otherwise have been six times the poverty threshold or more, lowering their average family income by about 0.1 percent.
Posted on 2/19/18 at 1:59 am to Ebbandflow
Pew doesn't even take into account job losses. They should stick to polling and leave Econ to economists.
Posted on 2/19/18 at 2:00 am to Ebbandflow
Why is it that none of your sources account for the rise in prices due to the rise in minimum wage? I know the answer, just wondering if you do.
Posted on 2/19/18 at 2:02 am to TexasTiger86
quote:
Why is it that none of your sources account for the rise in prices due to the rise in minimum wage? I know the answer, just wondering if you do.
It has resulted in overall growth over 60% of the time
Posted on 2/19/18 at 2:03 am to Ebbandflow
quote:
Since it was last raised in 2009, to the current $7.25 per hour, the federal minimum has lost about 9.6% of its purchasing power to inflation.
You probably glossed over it a few days ago, but this was the question I asked you about; How is purchasing power created?
See, the problem isn't wages, per se. The problem is the lack of purchasing power of those wages.
Not only does inflation tear at it, but the insane amount of compliance costs, that people like you constantly advocate for, help to erode that purchasing power even further.
Then, there's the problem of Regulatory Capture, another policy people like you support, which keeps competitors out of the market. That means prices are higher than they would otherwise be, while wages have downward pressure put on them.
One other thing is the massive amounts of market dislocations that happen because all of the government interventions into the markets. Again, this erodes purchasing power.
What you, and people like you REFUSE to let yourselves see is that the policies you support CRUSH the very people you claim to care the most about.
Posted on 2/19/18 at 2:04 am to Ebbandflow
I'm glad you have given up trying to find credible sources. It makes you look even more foolish.
Posted on 2/19/18 at 2:04 am to Ebbandflow
What happens to demand when the price of anything is increased?
This post was edited on 2/19/18 at 2:05 am
Posted on 2/19/18 at 2:05 am to RogerTheShrubber
And then what happens to jobs when demand for goods and services declines?
Maybe we can break through to him.... Maybe.
Maybe we can break through to him.... Maybe.
Posted on 2/19/18 at 2:06 am to beerJeep
Yeah it's the very basics of Econ
Qty demanded drops when the price increases.
Qty demanded drops when the price increases.
Page 15 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News