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

[danielpalos]

Only due to lousy public policies that deny and disparage equal protection of the laws in our at-will employment States.

Higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue which engenders the multiplier effect.

Labor must be able to afford our first world economy. Inflation still happened even with the minimum wage stagnating for around a decade. Capitalism has no solution for that, historically.

 

[LV426]

One of the bigger ones is government regulation.

"Government Regulation" is the excuse poor business owners use to justify their poor business decisions.

Regulation isn't what kills businesses...BAD MANAGEMENT IS.

This is another thing Biden has promised to create more of... Lots more of...

Clearly we need it because our economy is in shambles after 4 years of your bullshit.

 

[Legion]

I blame the income inequality on right wingers and their insistence on keeping the equivalent to historical black codes in our at-will employment States. No firms should be allowed to leave the US for merely cheaper labor unless it includes cheaper pay for the CEO as well. Such firms should be tariffed the equivalent to the highest minimum wage in the land and used for social programs in the US.

None of what you said is backed by data.

How is it that the working poor in "the largest economy in the US" which already has a government-mandated $14 hourly minimum wage cannot afford housing and utilities?

 

[LV426]

The Congressional Budget Office says raising it will have negative consequences..

Yes, incremental and nominal price increases.

Just as I've said and have been saying this whole time.

But framing a choice of a worker to work less hours as a negative consequence is quite enlightening of your general attitude towards labor in general.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

One of the bigger ones is government regulation..

Regulations and meeting them is costly:

This is another thing Biden has promised to create more of... Lots more of...

but bigger ones than that are the neocon/neoliberal love affair with chinese mercantilism, aka "free market globalism", and the covid lockdowns, also done for large corporate and chinese benefit.

 

[Legion]

Clearly we need it because our economy is in shambles after 4 years of your bullshit.

Government-mandated shutdowns had no effect on the economy?

 

[Legion]

Yes, incremental and nominal price increases.

Price controls?

 

[LV426]

Actually some of them do discuss that.

Well, no one would know it based on how you framed it all. You left that shit out. Why? Because you are trying to frame the MW increase as a universally bad thing, not because of the economics, but because of your personal subjective judgement, which you articulated so cleanly here when you substituted that subjectivity for objectivity:

But working fewer hours can be a bad thing.

How so? If a worker is choosing to work less hours, how is that a bad thing?

There is no guarantee that consumer spending will create jobs.

?????

Consumer spending is the ONLY THING that always creates jobs. Consumer Spending = Demand. It's the same thing. Increasing consumer spending increases demand, and businesses have to expand in order to meet that demand.

Or they can close their doors and say "no thanks, I've made all the money I want to make"...though, I don't know how many would do something like that just to prove a point.

Killing your business to own da libs...

That's not what the 'experts' say. They say some won't be dramatically affected, others definitely will be harmed by this increase.

No, that's not what they said. You even said so yourself here:

Actually some of them do discuss that.

So help me understand why you said what you said, but made no mention of the other piece of the MW increase, which is increased consumer spending and demand?

You left all that out of your "analysis" and final judgment here, and I want to know why?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

YOU SAID they would end up with less, but that's not true at all. So you lied.

I said they could end up with less. It is you that is misquoting me with a lie.

Right, but with the $15,600, they are left with $13,728, or 88% of their earnings.

With the $31,200, they are left with $27,456, or 88% of their earnings.

Now, is $13,278 > or < $27,456, and by how much?

As I also pointed out, and you ignored, there are things besides taxes to consider here and we can't be sure how any of those will be handled before hand.

SOPHISTRY ALERT.

Yes, $3744 > $1872, but $13,278 < $27,456.

So what you're doing is the very lazy approach by posturing gross numbers and retconning your argument around gross numbers.

But even the gross numbers show that raising the MW will result in up to a 100% increase in wages, and the tax rate stays the same (12%).

You are such a gigantic piece of shit for doing this.

So, now it's ad hominem I stated clearly that straight tax percentages alone were a gross simplification because of the complexity of the US tax code, but you apparently chose to ignore that and insult me instead.

Ah, so now comes the argument for M4A, which is another piece of this. I agree that employers may try to do this, but that's why we need M4A so they don't.

M4A would save those businesses millions of dollars every year.

Separate topic. But here too, there are trade offs. Medicare for all could seriously decrease the quality and availability of health care for example.

Or the employee requests to have their hours cut, which creates demand for more employees because the other side of this that you are deliberately ignoring, is the increase in consumer spending that comes from up to doubling people's wages. You helpfully pointed that out for me when you articulated that the worker now has DOUBLE the wealth and income they had before the MW increase.

Again, it's up to a DOUBLING of the wage. From $15K/yr to $31K/yr. What are they going to spend that extra $15K on?

The money to double that wage has to come from somewhere. Where that "somewhere" is could make the wage increase effectively void.

So again, I have said that at least a dozen times that costs will nominally and/or incrementally go up, you just didn't acknowledge it because you are in the habit of sloppily and lazily responding to posts.

Really? You so far haven't sourced a thing you've claimed. You keep making a argument that is void of any other influences or pressure other than the wage goes up. Your claims largely rest on everything else remaining static. That isn't going to happen, and the sources I cited all say that definitively.

 

[LV426]

Only due to lousy public policies that deny and disparage equal protection of the laws in our at-will employment States.

Higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue which engenders the multiplier effect.

Labor must be able to afford our first world economy. Inflation still happened even with the minimum wage stagnating for around a decade. Capitalism has no solution for that, historically.

100% correct here.

 

[Legion]

Only due to lousy public policies that deny and disparage equal protection of the laws in our at-will employment States.

Is that so? Give me some examples.

Higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue which engenders the multiplier effect.

So you say. Copied from the Wikipedia demand-side entry?

How's that working in the jurisdictions that already have legislated higher minimum wages?

Labor must be able to afford our first world economy.

So you say. Employers must be able to afford your first world wages, or they aren't competitive with countries (like Communist China) that don't protect the rights of workers.

 

[Legion]

100% correct here.

Are you 100% entirely sure of this?

 

[LV426]

I said they could end up with less. It is you that is misquoting me with a lie.

No, mathematically they can't because of the tax brackets that I very graciously and nicely gave to you.

You're welcome, by the way.

 

[Legion]

If DEMOCRATS have the answer to poverty, why is this the result of their policies?

Four of the five cities with the highest rate of unsheltered homelessness are in California: San Francisco, Los Angeles, Santa Rosa and San Jose. Seattle joins the California municipalities in the top five.

The Trump administration may stage a federal intervention in California to address homelessness in the state.

As for state homelessness rates, the District of Columbia has the highest in the country, at 5.8 times the U.S. rate.

New York is next, followed by Hawaii, Oregon and California.

These five states together comprise 20% of the overall U.S. population but 45% of the country’s homeless population.



https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-state-is-home-to-nearly-half-of-all-people-living-on-the-streets-in-the-us-2019-09-18

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Is that so? Give me some examples.



So you say. Copied from the Wikipedia demand-side entry?

How's that working in the jurisdictions that already have legislated higher minimum wages?

So you say. Employers must be able to afford your first world wages, or they aren't competitive with countries (like Communist China) that don't protect the rights of workers.

Earlier I posted an article on how the $16 an hour minimum wage in Seattle, that's already in place, has negatively affected workers there but LV426 didn't bother to read that or if he did, didn't understand it.

 

[danielpalos]

None of what you said is backed by data.

How is it that the working poor in "the largest economy in the US" which already has a government-mandated $14 hourly minimum wage cannot afford housing and utilities?

The data is a lagging indicator. The multiplier takes time to engender the effects. The fourteen dollar an hour minimum wage for employers with more than twenty-five employees took effect this year. And, they can afford it better now than before.

 

[LV426]

As I also pointed out, and you ignored, there are things besides taxes to consider here and we can't be sure how any of those will be handled before hand.

Well, we know right away that most of those 58M people don't get health care through their jobs. Most of them are on Medicaid. Others are on the ACA. When it comes down to it, very few of those 58M people have employer-provided health care. Most of them are on Medicaid or get their insurance through the ACA because their jobs don't offer them.

So what else ya got?

 

[LV426]

So, now it's ad hominem I stated clearly that straight tax percentages alone were a gross simplification

You're the one literally using gross numbers, pal.

Bad faith all around with you.

You say "well a higher wage means they pay more taxes overall"...yes, and they are also earning more overall and generating more wealth overall.

So I'm just working within the parameters YOU SET FOR YOURSELF.

 

[LV426]

Separate topic. But here too, there are trade offs. Medicare for all could seriously decrease the quality and availability of health care for example.

How so? Explain. Show your work.

 

[Legion]

How come there's no demand-driven economic surge?