What happens if Biden gets his $15 minimum wage passed?

[Truth Detector]

PROGRESSIVE PARADISE, WITH $14 @ HOUR MINIMUM WAGE

“California, folks, is America fast forward.”

Thus said Governor Gavin "Twosome" Newsom. “What we’re experiencing right here is coming to a community all across the United States of America."

California is “the progressive model of the future".

Back in 2007, total state spending was $146 billion. Last year it was $215 billion.

I know, I know: In real terms California’s GDP increased by nearly a third in the same period. And I know: If it were an independent nation it would be the fifth-largest economy in the world, ahead of India’s. But for how much longer will that be true?

California’s taxes aren’t the highest in the country — for the median household.

But the tax system is one of the most progressive, with a 13.3% top tax rate on incomes above $1 million — and that’s no longer deductible from the federal tax bill as it used to be.

The top 1% of taxpayers (those earning more than $500,000) now account for half of personal income-tax revenue. And there’s worse to come.

The latest brilliant ideas in Sacramento are to raise the top income rate up to 16.8% and to levy a wealth tax (0.4% on personal fortunes over $30 million) that you couldn’t even avoid paying if you left the state. (The proposal envisages payment for up to 10 years after departure to a lower-tax state.)

It is a strange place that seeks to repel the rich while making itself a magnet for illegal immigrants by establishing no fewer than 20 “sanctuary” cities or counties.

And the results of all this progressive policy?

A poverty boom.

California now has 12% of the nation's population, but over 30% of its welfare recipients.

A Census Bureau report, which takes housing and other costs into account, says the poverty rate in California is 17.2%, the highest of any state. ("Twosome" Newsom gets one thing right when he says, “We're living in the wealthiest as well as the poorest state in America.”)

About a third of California’s poverty can be attributed to housing and other living costs such as clothing and utilities.

As everyone who resides there knows, there’s a chronic housing shortage in the Bay Area (the median-priced home in San Francisco costs about $1.5 million), mainly because a plethora of regulations make the construction of affordable housing well-nigh impossible.

In blithe disregard of all we know about rent controls — which discourage landlords from providing housing — that is, predictably, the solution the DEMOCRATS propose.

The state’s public schools rank 37th in the country overall and have the highest pupil-teacher ratio.

“Only half of California students meet English standards and fewer meet math standards, test scores show,” was a headline in the Los Angeles Times. Health care and pension costs are unsustainable.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-09-20/california-burnin-a-warning-against-one-party-rule

[Legion]

Amazon doesn't need more help. These Government mandated Fascistic shutdowns are doing enough.

They aren't government-mandated, though.

[LV426]

what?

If you increase consumer spending by increasing the wages of 58M people, you are going to see an increase in revenues for your business because of increased consumer spending.

Unless your business sucks, you don't know how to run it, or what you produce is shit.

You're not entitled to owning a business.

basic economics says increasing costs to produce goods and services ( which includes labor)
makes a product/service less competitively priced

No, that is not basic economics, that is Supply Side Economics, which is a complete and total joke.

Increasing labor costs INCREASES consumer spending because all those people you just gave a raise to are going to spend their money somewhere. This is true for those at the lower end of the income spectrum...most of those people don't have debts or savings, which means they spend their wage increase immediately. Tax cuts don't get spent in the economy, but wage increases do.

If you raise the incomes of 58M people up to $6K a year, you're looking at an increase of up to $350B in consumer spending, or ~1.5% of GDP.

I know math is something you really hate, but them's the facts bruh.

[LV426]

If that were true, you wouldn't be following a Nazi like Rev. HellH0und/B&T/SotR around and agreeing with him. You'd simply put me on ignore and preach Peace, Love, Dove with the sane Democrats.

Even a stopped Nazi clock is right twice a day.

[Geeko Sportivo]

Oh wow... a shallow vocabulary for a shallow mind... how fitting.

It takes a really shallow mind to be a TRUMPTARD to begin with- IT ONLY TAKES SOMEONE WITH A SOUND MIND TO BE ABLE TO STAND UP TO TRUMPTARDS AND READILY CALL THEM OUT! [Geeko Sportivo]

And, of course, you may always quote me!

[Son of the Revolution]

It takes a really shallow mind to be a TRUMPTARD to begin with- IT ACTUALLY TAKES SOMEONE WITH A SOUND MIND TO BE ABLE TO STAND UP TO TRUMPTARDS AND CALL THEM OUT!

ahhh look at the liberal cocksucker^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Legion]

If you increase consumer spending by increasing the wages of 58M people, you are going to see an increase in revenues for your business because of increased consumer spending.

Is that so?

Got some examples?

[Legion]

No, that is not basic economics, that is Supply Side Economics, which is a complete and total joke.

Who told you that "increasing costs to produce goods and services ( which includes labor) makes a product/service less competitively priced is "Supply Side Economics"?

Supply-side economics is a macroeconomic theory that postulates economic growth can be most effectively fostered by lowering taxes and decreasing regulation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

You think that forcing employers to raise wages will stimulate demand without negative repercussions, and that's not even demand-side economics.

Demand-side economics is a term used to describe the position that economic growth and full employment are most effectively created by high demand for products and services. According to demand-side economics, output is determined by effective demand. High consumer spending leads to business expansion, resulting in greater employment opportunities. Higher levels of employment create a multiplier effect that further stimulates aggregate demand, leading to greater economic growth. Proponents of demand-side economics argue that tax breaks for the wealthy produce little, if any, economic benefit because most of the additional money is not spent on goods or services but is reinvested in an economy with low demand (which makes speculative bubbles likely). Instead, they argue increased governmental spending will help to grow the economy by spurring additional employment opportunities. They cite the lessons of the Great Depression of the 1930s as evidence that increased governmental spending spurs growth. Demand side economics traces its origins to British economist John Maynard Keynes. He argued there is no automatic stabilizing mechanism built into an economy and that as a result state intervention is necessary to maintain output.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand-side_economics

[Geeko Sportivo]

ahhh look at the liberal cocksucker^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^ Would you just look at this loser and crybaby?

[LV426]

you are basically advocating more costs built into a product/service is OK because people earn more.

It's not $1:$1...you realize that, right? That increasing someone's wage from $10/hr to $15/hr doesn't mean the cost of a hamburger also goes from $1 to $6.

You're an economic illiterate.

that doesnt produce growth. just higher wages chasing higher prices - that's neutral or inflationary

Higher wages means higher revenues because of higher spending by people who don't have debt or savings, largely.

[LV426]

This assumes that demand will be related to the higher wages of those receiving them. This isn't true.

Yes, it is true because low income people do not largely have debt or savings, which means they are going to spend the money as soon as it hits their pocket.

That's the case for up to 58M people, whom this change will affect.

Demand for a company's product in this scenario could go up, down, or stay the same. You can't assume that because wages rise demand will rise with it, certainly not on the micro scale you can't.

It will go up simply because of more spending. Up to 1.5% GDP's worth of it, or up to $350B annually. I'm old enough to remember when you were celebrating Trump's GDP because it barely got to 2.9%.

It may not raise disposable income at all. For example, you raise someone's wage from $7.50 an hour to $15 an hour. Let's say that makes them ineligible for food stamps (a form of wages in kind) they were receiving along with eliminating their EIC on taxes when filed (another wage in kind). Their taxes also rise offsetting some of the new wage. So, their overall earnings for the year say virtually the same for our example, just they are no longer receiving as much government support. They have no change in disposable income, no noticeable change in spending. Instead, all that has happened is the burden of paying them has shifted from the government and taxes to the employer who may not be able to bear that burden so they end up being laid off or let go. Now the burden on the government and taxes rises precipitously instead of going down.

So this is bunkum economic theory that doesn't take into account the elasticity of a labor market where the wage is much higher. That results in higher wages ACROSS THE BOARD, as employers have to compete to retain employees who could simply go get a different job.

And you're stating here, plainly, that the consumer spending done by these people would REPLACE the government welfare spending done for them.

That's a bad thing, why?

No one can predict with precision what will happen if this passes.

Sure we can, because we have been through this 23 times before. Every single one of those times, you people have predicted and warned of economic catastrophe, and every single time YOU PEOPLE HAVE BEEN WRONG.

You're just repeating the same failed arguments from 80 years ago, that all the empirical evidence we've seen since destroys entirely.

Increasing wages is how you increase demand, and the resulting price increase is not $1:$1, meaning, the price of consumer products and services doesn't increase at the same rate as wages do.

If you believe they do, you're a fucking idiot.

[Son of the Revolution]

^^^^^ Would you just look at this loser and crybaby?

yes you are a loser

[LV426]

As I just demonstrated, this is not necessarily true. Consumption could contract or stay the same. It isn't fully predictable.

It's not necessarily true if you are a shitty business owner.

But wages aren't the reason why any business fails...poor management is the reason.

Plenty of businesses exist that pay their employees at least $15/hr...so if they can make it work, why can't others?

You make the mistake of thinking this is not a zero-sum game.

It isn't a zero sum game. It is a game where wealth is created by increased consumer spending through higher wages.

That is, you assume that wages go up with little or no negative effects.

Jesus Christ...if you had bothered to read anything I wrote, you'd see that I said, very plainly, that yes, costs may increase nominally or incrementally, but that is more than made up for by increased revenues, that come from increased consumption, that comes from increased wages.

[LV426]

Again, you simplify the problem to benefit your argument. If someone's wage goes from $7.50 an hour to $15 an hour, those wages are now taxed at a higher rate.

You sure about that?

I mean, really, really, really sure about that?

Like, 100% sure about it?

Are you willing to stake your entire reputation on that?

Because I can utterly destroy you here, but am holding back because I know how fragile your ego is.

So I'm giving you a chance to correct yourself, or be utterly humiliated. Your choice.

[LV426]

The overall effect might well be they end up with less income than they had before. It isn't fully predictable.

No they won't.

Again...I can destroy you here.

Utterly annihilate you.

I mean, an EPIC annihilation that will probably result in you either putting me on ignore, or ditching this ID to start over with another.

So I will ask again, are you 100% entirely sure of this??