$15 Minimum Wage Would Bring Mixed Fortunes for U.S. Workers.

  • 152 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Master_Live
#1 Edited by Master_Live (19656 posts) -

House plan would give 17 million Americans raises, cost 1.3 million their jobs, nonpartisan government report finds.

Increasing the national minimum wage to $15 an hour would deliver a raise for millions of U.S. workers but could also cost 1.3 million Americans their jobs, according to a government forecast that complicates congressional Democrats’ push to more than double the federal pay floor.

If the federal minimum wage were raised to $15 an hour in 2025, as House Democrats have proposed, a significant number of Americans would likely lose their jobs, a study released Monday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found.

But the study also estimates that in an average week in 2025—the year after the House measure would take full effect—a $15-an-hour minimum wage would boost the pay of 17 million workers who would otherwise earn less than $15 per hour. It could also raise the pay of 10 million workers who otherwise would earn slightly more than $15 an hour. Raising the federal minimum to $15 would lift 1.3 million Americans out of poverty, the CBO said.

The agency prepared the report on the effects of lifting the wage from $7.25 an hour ahead of next week’s expected House vote on a bill that would gradually lift the pay floor to $15 an hour by 2024.

“If you look at the whole report, there’s no question there are significant benefits for a massive number of people that far outweigh whatever the cost might be,” said Rep. Bobby Scott (D., Va.), chairman of the House labor committee and one of the bill’s top supporters.

But Republicans were quick to pounce on the job-loss figures.

“This report confirms what we already knew,” Rep. Steve Womack (R., Ark.) said in a statement. “American workers and families will lose their jobs if this bill is enacted.”

The study’s estimate of 1.3 million jobs lost is the median figure in a range from zero to 3.7 million eliminated jobs. That broad range reflects uncertainty about how wages could otherwise change over the next five years absent any policy shifts, and how employers might respond to the proposed federal increase.

“Many studies have found little or no effect of minimum wages on employment, but many others have found substantial reductions in employment,” the study said.

The job-loss finding appears to be higher than Mr. Scott anticipated. He said on a conference call with reporters that the median estimate of studies he reviewed was zero jobs lost, and he pointed to recent studies finding job gains in some cases after minimum wages increased in local areas.

A majority of voters support raising the federal minimum wage, polls show. A Hill-HarrisX poll in January found that 55% of registered voters said they backed a $15 minimum wage. Twenty-seven percent said it should be raised but to a lower amount.

While the House bill cleared committee in March, it languished as some Democrats from the South and Midwest pushed a rival bill that would set a tiered minimum wage tied to the cost of living in an area. But left-leaning lawmakers continued to push for a vote on a $15 wage, a longtime goal of progressive activists. The GOP-controlled Senate isn’t likely to consider the legislation.

Mr. Scott said he still expects the bill to come up for a vote next week and expressed optimism that it would pass. The measure gained support recently after two leaders of the moderate Blue Dog Coalition, Reps. Stephanie Murphy (D., Fla.) and Tom O’Halleran (D., Ariz.), proposed an amendment asking the Government Accountability Office to perform a study two years into the bill’s five-year phase-in assessing its impact on the economy.

Lawmakers could then decide, based on those findings, whether to proceed with the next phase of increases. Leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus have supported the two-year checkup plan.

The federal minimum wage was last increased a decade ago, in July 2009. But most states don’t follow that law. Twenty-nine states and many cities have moved to raise their pay floors above the federal level. New York and California are among six states, along with the District of Columbia, that have passed legislation to set a $15 minimum wage in the coming years.

Many of the states that follow the federal rate are low-cost areas where the impact on jobs could be more pronounced. Because the median national wage last year was $18.58, according to the Labor Department, any impact on employment would more likely occur in states like Alabama, where half of workers earned $16.22 an hour or less.

Republicans don’t appear eager to raise the minimum wage, making it unlikely any federal increase would be enacted until at least after the 2020 elections. Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta hasn’t backed increasing the federal pay floor, and said earlier this year that a $15 minimum wage would cost the country jobs.

While campaigning for office, President Trump took various positions, at one point supporting a $10 an hour minimum wage, but he hasn’t been vocal about the policy recently. The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Economists are split on the likely effects of an increase.

A majority of economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal in April said employers would cut payrolls if the federal minimum were raised to between $10.01 and $13.00 an hour. One-third said job losses would occur at any level above the current rate.

Still, the economists who favor a higher minimum wage recommended an average level of $10.83 an hour, significantly higher than the current one. Just under a third of survey respondents said there shouldn’t be a minimum wage at all.

Academic research on the topic is mixed. In one frequently cited study by the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, economists found that 138 state-level minimum-wage increases between 1979 and 2016 didn’t affect the overall number of low-wage jobs.

But another closely watched study by University of Washington economists found raising Seattle’s minimum wage to $13 an hour in 2016 increased pay in low-wage jobs by 3%, but reduced the hours worked in those jobs by 6% to 7%. Total employment for such jobs decreased.

The CBO study also considered the impact of smaller wage increases.

It found that lifting the federal minimum to $12 an hour in 2025 would result in 300,000 fewer Americans with jobs and increase pay for five million workers who would otherwise earn less than the threshold. Lifting the federal minimum to $10 an hour would have little effect on employment and increase wages for 1.5 million Americans who would otherwise make less than the minimum, the study found.

Well, this isn't going anywhere in the Senate, certainly not before 2020. After that it depends on the configuration of Congress and the WH. At the end I would expect a compromise somewhere in the range of $9 to $12 with a long implementation window.

I don't think the minimum wage should be raise.

What say you? Should the minimum wage be raise? If so, to how much?

Avatar image for burntbyhellfire
#2 Posted by burntbyhellfire (451 posts) -

you also have to look at the people who will not be getting more than that, people who are anywhere from slightly above the minimum wage up to making considerably more. higher minimum wage isnt going to bring anyone out of poverty, the cost of things WILL go up and people will lose their job, but say you're making $14/hr now and minimum wage where you are is $10, then it goes up to $15/hr, sure, you're now getting a buck more an hour but you just went from making $4 above minimum to rock bottom

Avatar image for joebones5000
#3 Edited by joebones5000 (2620 posts) -
@burntbyhellfire said:

you also have to look at the people who will not be getting more than that, people who are anywhere from slightly above the minimum wage up to making considerably more. higher minimum wage isnt going to bring anyone out of poverty, the cost of things WILL go up and people will lose their job, but say you're making $14/hr now and minimum wage where you are is $10, then it goes up to $15/hr, sure, you're now getting a buck more an hour but you just went from making $4 above minimum to rock bottom

So here's the thing with costs going up - THEY GO UP EVERY YEAR ANYWAY! You are going to pay more every year, regardless. As it stands right now I am COMPELLED to pay for the welfare and food stamps of workers who make federal minimum, $7.25. If you raise their wages and get them off welfare and companies do decide to raise prices I CAN DECIDE which businesses I patronize! That's freedom of choice. I thought conservatives were all about choice?

So if we have historically low unemployment and increasing wages would benefit 17 million, couldn't the 1.3 million just get other jobs? Wouldn't the extra money the 17 million have help stimulate the economy which would increase the need for more workers?

Beyond some bogus political arguments, there doesn't seem to be much downside to increasing the minimum to $15. That seems like a reasonable amount considering the cost of things today.

Here's another Q: If lowering taxes stimulates the economy, why don't we just make taxes 0%???

Avatar image for Nuck81
#4 Posted by Nuck81 (7708 posts) -

@burntbyhellfire: Inflation is rampant under trump and prices are going up anyway.

Historically min wage hikes have boosted the economy.

No wonder gop is against it.

GOP is the pro poverty party.

Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
#5 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (45218 posts) -

We need to increase the minimum wage just to account for inflation and COLA (somewhere to the $10 - $11 range). Important caveat, the minimum wage isn't exactly a barometer to be focused on as it remains an entry-minimum step into the workforce, and not a means to live off of.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
#6 Posted by mattbbpl (17345 posts) -

We didnt give a shit about about potential spillover effects when we gave more money to the rich, but raising the wages of the poorest earners for the first time in over a decade is a bridge too far.

Avatar image for Solaryellow
#7 Posted by Solaryellow (5090 posts) -

@joebones5000 said:
@burntbyhellfire said:

you also have to look at the people who will not be getting more than that, people who are anywhere from slightly above the minimum wage up to making considerably more. higher minimum wage isnt going to bring anyone out of poverty, the cost of things WILL go up and people will lose their job, but say you're making $14/hr now and minimum wage where you are is $10, then it goes up to $15/hr, sure, you're now getting a buck more an hour but you just went from making $4 above minimum to rock bottom

So here's the thing with costs going up - THEY GO UP EVERY YEAR ANYWAY! You are going to pay more every year, regardless. As it stands right now I am COMPELLED to pay for the welfare and food stamps of workers who make federal minimum, $7.25. If you raise their wages and get them off welfare and companies do decide to raise prices I CAN DECIDE which businesses I patronize! That's freedom of choice. I thought conservatives were all about choice?

Some do and some don't. Lets be honest.

Avatar image for dzimm
#8 Posted by dzimm (5510 posts) -

@Nuck81: "Historically min wage hikes have boosted the economy."

Artificial wage hikes always and without exception have a negative impact on the economy. A number of cities and states have implemented artificially high minimum wages, and it has resulted in stores laying off employees and cutting hours, or being forced to close their doors, especially low profit margin businesses like restaurants.

The other problem is that it tends to price low-skilled workers out of the market. If a restaurant is forced to pay top dollar for someone to flip burgers, then they're going to find the most skilled and experienced burger flipper they can.

It's ironic that artificially increasing the minimum wage ends up hurting the people it's supposed to help.

Avatar image for burntbyhellfire
#9 Posted by burntbyhellfire (451 posts) -

@joebones5000 said:
@burntbyhellfire said:

you also have to look at the people who will not be getting more than that, people who are anywhere from slightly above the minimum wage up to making considerably more. higher minimum wage isnt going to bring anyone out of poverty, the cost of things WILL go up and people will lose their job, but say you're making $14/hr now and minimum wage where you are is $10, then it goes up to $15/hr, sure, you're now getting a buck more an hour but you just went from making $4 above minimum to rock bottom

So here's the thing with costs going up - THEY GO UP EVERY YEAR ANYWAY! You are going to pay more every year, regardless. As it stands right now I am COMPELLED to pay for the welfare and food stamps of workers who make federal minimum, $7.25. If you raise their wages and get them off welfare and companies do decide to raise prices I CAN DECIDE which businesses I patronize! That's freedom of choice. I thought conservatives were all about choice?

So if we have historically low unemployment and increasing wages would benefit 17 million, couldn't the 1.3 million just get other jobs? Wouldn't the extra money the 17 million have help stimulate the economy which would increase the need for more workers?

Beyond some bogus political arguments, there doesn't seem to be much downside to increasing the minimum to $15. That seems like a reasonable amount considering the cost of things today.

Here's another Q: If lowering taxes stimulates the economy, why don't we just make taxes 0%???

really? if raising minimum wage is suddenly going to make everybody live better, afford more things, and get out of poverty.. why hasnt it worked yet with minimum wage hike after minimum wage hike and the poverty rate being unaffected?.. why not set the minimum wage to $100/hr if you think it's going to make everyone rich

the reality is the minimum wage, be it $5/hr, or $50/hr, is still the minimum wage, these people will always be on the bottom, their cost of living will go up exponentially, and their relative level of poverty then will be the same as it is now, all youre doing is raising the costs for everyone else as well who will not be getting a wage hike, dragging down more of the middle class, and the DNC knows this

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#10 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (10874 posts) -

@mattbbpl said:

We didnt give a shit about about potential spillover effects when we gave more money to the rich, but raising the wages of the poorest earners for the first time in over a decade is a bridge too far.

My first thoughts as well. People don't give a shit about boosting corporate profits and the potential overheating effects it could have, but people getting more spending money? STOP WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT IT!

Avatar image for joebones5000
#11 Edited by joebones5000 (2620 posts) -

@burntbyhellfire: you just replied with a bunch of nonsense. Raising the minimum wage is primarily meant to ward off inflation and the cost of living. You don't raise minimum to 100 for the same reason you don't cut taxes to 0.

I guess you don't like choice and like being compelled by government to pay for Welfare and food stamps. Doesn't make sense, but I've noticed that most conservatives don't.

Raising the minimum would benefit everyone. There is no valid argument against it.

Avatar image for burntbyhellfire
#12 Posted by burntbyhellfire (451 posts) -

@joebones5000 said:

@burntbyhellfire: you just replied with a bunch of nonsense. Raising the minimum wage is primarily meant to ward off inflation. You don't raise minimum to 100 for the same reason you don't cut taxes to 0.

I guess you don't like choice and like being compelled by government to pay for Welfare and food stamps. Doesn't make sense, but I've noticed that most conservatives don't.

Raising the minimum would benefit everyone. There is no valid argument against it.

and lets say minimum was $10 now, and is $15 then, what happens to those making $13 and $14 an hour?

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#13 Posted by foxhound_fox (98011 posts) -

American's wouldn't need a $15 minimum wage if the cost of living went down. You know, single-payer healthcare, lower taxes from not funding the giant corporate military system and government subsidized healthy food (take the HFCS funding and give it to produce farmers).

Avatar image for drunk_pi
#14 Posted by Drunk_PI (2815 posts) -
@burntbyhellfire said:
@joebones5000 said:

@burntbyhellfire: you just replied with a bunch of nonsense. Raising the minimum wage is primarily meant to ward off inflation. You don't raise minimum to 100 for the same reason you don't cut taxes to 0.

I guess you don't like choice and like being compelled by government to pay for Welfare and food stamps. Doesn't make sense, but I've noticed that most conservatives don't.

Raising the minimum would benefit everyone. There is no valid argument against it.

and lets say minimum was $10 now, and is $15 then, what happens to those making $13 and $14 an hour?

It goes up.

There's a cost to it but living off the current minimum wage is almost impossible considering how everything is getting expensive and there's a lack of programs helping those in poverty.

While working minimum wage jobs aren't suppose to be lived off, people do it anyways due to lack of job prospects at the moment, as well as other expenses such as caring for a child, rent, paying off loans, debts, etc, etc.

I don't know why this is controversial yet tax cuts for billionaires is somehow acceptable, nevermind that it doesn't benefit the economy.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
#15 Posted by mattbbpl (17345 posts) -

@burntbyhellfire: Typically decompression of the wage scale. Under previous circumstances* the wages of those workers would rise to the minimum immediately and then climb higher over time to create whatever separation is necessary to meet demand in the new climate.

*I mention previous circumstances because wages and the Philips Curve are doing some weird things right now, so I'm unsure how good of a comparison the last 100 years makes.

Avatar image for joebones5000
#16 Edited by joebones5000 (2620 posts) -

@burntbyhellfire said:
@joebones5000 said:

@burntbyhellfire: you just replied with a bunch of nonsense. Raising the minimum wage is primarily meant to ward off inflation. You don't raise minimum to 100 for the same reason you don't cut taxes to 0.

I guess you don't like choice and like being compelled by government to pay for Welfare and food stamps. Doesn't make sense, but I've noticed that most conservatives don't.

Raising the minimum would benefit everyone. There is no valid argument against it.

and lets say minimum was $10 now, and is $15 then, what happens to those making $13 and $14 an hour?

Uh, they go to whatever rate their employer deems they deserve, as long as it is >= 15, just like every employer has done since federal minimums were enacted in 1938.

Dude, did you seriously think that was a valid question that had some deeper point behind it? WTF do you think happened when it went up every single time? People got paid more and business adjusted to the new norms.

There is no valid argument against it, but there is a valid argument to increase it gradually over a number of years.

Avatar image for joebones5000
#17 Edited by joebones5000 (2620 posts) -

@drunk_pi said:
@burntbyhellfire said:
@joebones5000 said:

@burntbyhellfire: you just replied with a bunch of nonsense. Raising the minimum wage is primarily meant to ward off inflation. You don't raise minimum to 100 for the same reason you don't cut taxes to 0.

I guess you don't like choice and like being compelled by government to pay for Welfare and food stamps. Doesn't make sense, but I've noticed that most conservatives don't.

Raising the minimum would benefit everyone. There is no valid argument against it.

and lets say minimum was $10 now, and is $15 then, what happens to those making $13 and $14 an hour?

It goes up.

There's a cost to it but living off the current minimum wage is almost impossible considering how everything is getting expensive and there's a lack of programs helping those in poverty.

While working minimum wage jobs aren't suppose to be lived off, people do it anyways due to lack of job prospects at the moment, as well as other expenses such as caring for a child, rent, paying off loans, debts, etc, etc.

I don't know why this is controversial yet tax cuts for billionaires is somehow acceptable, nevermind that it doesn't benefit the economy.

Well said. People are forced to live off of these jobs. Thanks to decades of union busting, we've moved from a manufacturing economy to a service economy and this was the result.

Avatar image for watercrack445
#18 Posted by watercrack445 (1719 posts) -

10 million raised from poverty?! Do it!

The Republicans wants us to bend the knee. Bend the knee to the masters and corporations.

Avatar image for burntbyhellfire
#19 Posted by burntbyhellfire (451 posts) -

@joebones5000 said:
@burntbyhellfire said:
@joebones5000 said:

@burntbyhellfire: you just replied with a bunch of nonsense. Raising the minimum wage is primarily meant to ward off inflation. You don't raise minimum to 100 for the same reason you don't cut taxes to 0.

I guess you don't like choice and like being compelled by government to pay for Welfare and food stamps. Doesn't make sense, but I've noticed that most conservatives don't.

Raising the minimum would benefit everyone. There is no valid argument against it.

and lets say minimum was $10 now, and is $15 then, what happens to those making $13 and $14 an hour?

Uh, they go to whatever rate their employer deems they deserve, as long as it is >= 15, just like every employer has done since federal minimums were enacted in 1938.

Dude, did you seriously think that was a valid question that had some deeper point behind it? WTF do you think happened when it went up every single time? People got paid more and business adjusted to the new norms.

There is no valid argument against it, but there is a valid argument to increase it gradually over a number of years.

do they? and what if the employer cannot afford to give everyone a $5 raise? then what happens as the living costs go up, because to pay workers more, they'll need to bring in more revenue and in order to do so, this means raising the cost of the products.. so expenses WILL go up, and you're going to absolutely guarantee those above minimum will be getting a raise as well?.. then at the end of the day, what did you accomplish by raising minimum wage if those earning it are still on the bottom, still struggling?.. you've accomplished exactly jack shit which is why no matter what the minimum wage is, $1 or $100, their lives aren't going to change

what do you think would happen if they lowered minimum wage? and companies were able to provide a product or service at lower cost than ever before, decreasing living expenses, would it make a difference?

Avatar image for burntbyhellfire
#20 Posted by burntbyhellfire (451 posts) -

@watercrack445 said:

10 million raised from poverty?! Do it!

The Republicans wants us to bend the knee. Bend the knee to the masters and corporations.

calm down sparky.. nobody has ever been lifted out of poverty with a minimum wage hike in US history before, nobody will be lifted out of poverty after the next one either

Avatar image for Fuhrer_D
#21 Posted by Fuhrer_D (916 posts) -

When I stop a Wendy's and my eldest get a burger that has more than ketchup on it, and the 30 year old taking the order pulls and $900 cell phone out of their pocket, I think no.

When I see someone working hard at two jobs because one just isn't enough, I think yes.

All in all, I don't think it will have the intended progressive outcome.

Avatar image for Serraph105
#22 Posted by Serraph105 (33963 posts) -

@Fuhrer_D said:

When I stop a Wendy's and my eldest get a burger that has more than ketchup on it, and the 30 year old taking the order pulls and $900 cell phone out of their pocket, I think no.

When I see someone working hard at two jobs because one just isn't enough, I think yes.

All in all, I don't think it will have the intended progressive outcome.

Those two people could be the exact same person. A cell phone keeps people connected to a network of people that can help get them a better job in the future in a way no other device can.

At any rate this paragraph sums up why we should be doing this in my opinion.

But the study also estimates that in an average week in 2025—the year after the House measure would take full effect—a $15-an-hour minimum wage would boost the pay of 17 million workers who would otherwise earn less than $15 per hour. It could also raise the pay of 10 million workers who otherwise would earn slightly more than $15 an hour. Raising the federal minimum to $15 would lift 1.3 million Americans out of poverty, the CBO said.

That's a net good for the economy.

Avatar image for joshrmeyer
#23 Posted by JoshRMeyer (10470 posts) -

"boost the pay of 17 million workers who would otherwise earn less than $15 per hour."

Only 17 million people make less than $15 an hr? There's hardly any jobs where I live that pays more than that.

Avatar image for joshrmeyer
#24 Posted by JoshRMeyer (10470 posts) -

@Master_Live: Yes, it should be raised to whatever a livable wage is depending on where you live. $7.25 is not a livable wage pretty much anywhere. $13-$17 would be a decent wage.

Avatar image for joebones5000
#25 Posted by joebones5000 (2620 posts) -

@burntbyhellfire said:

do they? and what if the employer cannot afford to give everyone a $5 raise? then what happens as the living costs go up, because to pay workers more, they'll need to bring in more revenue and in order to do so, this means raising the cost of the products.. so expenses WILL go up, and you're going to absolutely guarantee those above minimum will be getting a raise as well?.. then at the end of the day, what did you accomplish by raising minimum wage if those earning it are still on the bottom, still struggling?.. you've accomplished exactly jack shit which is why no matter what the minimum wage is, $1 or $100, their lives aren't going to change

what do you think would happen if they lowered minimum wage? and companies were able to provide a product or service at lower cost than ever before, decreasing living expenses, would it make a difference?

Dude, just stop. Employers do the same thing they did during the other 38 raises in the minimum wage, adjust to the new norms. Let's stop pretending that this is an unprecedented move.

Also, if a company way to lower it's labor costs, I guarantee you they don't ever lower the cost of their goods and services.

You're just babbling pedestrian nonsense now.

Avatar image for burntbyhellfire
#26 Edited by burntbyhellfire (451 posts) -

then if employers give all their employees raises, thus raising the cost of their products and services to compensate for an increase in minimum wage, raising the expenses of all other citizens living in the country, you break even.. so you are admitting that minimum wage hikes have no actual effect on the poverty level, the bottom will always be the bottom

and if labor costs are lowered and one company doesnt lower the cost of their product to compensate, people wouldnt be able to afford them and sales drop while their competitors see it as an opportunity to lower the cost of their product to undercut their competitors.. competition in business is a fantastic thing, and minimum wage increases have never, nor will they ever drag anyone out of poverty as the market will adjust

Avatar image for joebones5000
#27 Edited by joebones5000 (2620 posts) -

@burntbyhellfire said:

then if employers give all their employees raises, thus raising the cost of their products and services to compensate for an increase in minimum wage, raising the expenses of all other citizens living in the country, you break even.. so you are admitting that minimum wage hikes have no actual effect on the poverty level, the bottom will always be the bottom

and if labor costs are lowered and one company doesnt lower the cost of their product to compensate, people wouldnt be able to afford them and sales drop while their competitors see it as an opportunity to lower the cost of their product to undercut their competitors.. competition in business is a fantastic thing, and minimum wage increases have never, nor will they ever drag anyone out of poverty as the market will adjust

Blahbitty blah blah. Prices go up every year, regardless. Dude, just stop with the horse shit. Did you not read what the TC posted? 27 million would benefit from a minimum wage hike. 1.3 million would be lifted out of poverty, according to the CBO.

Poverty in the U.S. was 22% in 1959. It is 11% now. Care to take a guess how many minimum wage hikes we've seen since 1959?

I don't know what to say here. You keep posting nonsense over and over that is the exact opposite of what has actually happened the 38x the minimum wage has been raised.

Instead of posting political nonsense, why not just read the facts?

Avatar image for burntbyhellfire
#28 Edited by burntbyhellfire (451 posts) -

@joebones5000 said:
@burntbyhellfire said:

then if employers give all their employees raises, thus raising the cost of their products and services to compensate for an increase in minimum wage, raising the expenses of all other citizens living in the country, you break even.. so you are admitting that minimum wage hikes have no actual effect on the poverty level, the bottom will always be the bottom

and if labor costs are lowered and one company doesnt lower the cost of their product to compensate, people wouldnt be able to afford them and sales drop while their competitors see it as an opportunity to lower the cost of their product to undercut their competitors.. competition in business is a fantastic thing, and minimum wage increases have never, nor will they ever drag anyone out of poverty as the market will adjust

Blahbitty blah blah. Prices go up every year, regardless. Dude, just stop with the horse shit. Did you not read what the TC posted? 27 million would benefit from a minimum wage hike. 1.3 million would be lifted out of poverty, according to the CBO.

Poverty in the U.S. was 22% in 1959. It is 11% now. Care to take a guess how many minimum wage hikes we've seen since 1959?

I don't know what to say here. You keep posting nonsense over and over that is the exact opposite of what has actually happened the 38x the minimum wage has been raised.

Instead of posting political nonsense, why not just read the facts?

you know what else has been declining since the late 50s? both the US income tax rate and the unemployment rate.. while there have been minimum wage hikes going back to the 1930s as poverty levels have jumped, and fallen, proving no correlation between changes in poverty rates and any changes to minimum wage laws, there is more of a correlation between it and decreases to income tax rates and unemployment levels. low levels of unemployment signifies a worker shortage, increasing the value of labor and increasing income levels

nobody is going to be lifted out of poverty, thats not how this works

Avatar image for Fuhrer_D
#29 Posted by Fuhrer_D (916 posts) -

@Serraph105 said:
@Fuhrer_D said:

When I stop a Wendy's and my eldest get a burger that has more than ketchup on it, and the 30 year old taking the order pulls and $900 cell phone out of their pocket, I think no.

When I see someone working hard at two jobs because one just isn't enough, I think yes.

All in all, I don't think it will have the intended progressive outcome.

Those two people could be the exact same person. A cell phone keeps people connected to a network of people that can help get them a better job in the future in a way no other device can.

At any rate this paragraph sums up why we should be doing this in my opinion.

But the study also estimates that in an average week in 2025—the year after the House measure would take full effect—a $15-an-hour minimum wage would boost the pay of 17 million workers who would otherwise earn less than $15 per hour. It could also raise the pay of 10 million workers who otherwise would earn slightly more than $15 an hour. Raising the federal minimum to $15 would lift 1.3 million Americans out of poverty, the CBO said.

That's a net good for the economy.

One thing that would be interesting to see is if you have people who now make more, wanting less hours because whatever benefits they received (SNAP, child care vouchers) go away with the increase income. How does a business deal with that situation; replace the people who want less hours; keep their hours the same and tell them to walk if they can't come; give the people less hours and take on more head count? That can become a sticky situation for the employer and employee.

Avatar image for Serraph105
#30 Posted by Serraph105 (33963 posts) -

@Fuhrer_D said:
@Serraph105 said:
@Fuhrer_D said:

When I stop a Wendy's and my eldest get a burger that has more than ketchup on it, and the 30 year old taking the order pulls and $900 cell phone out of their pocket, I think no.

When I see someone working hard at two jobs because one just isn't enough, I think yes.

All in all, I don't think it will have the intended progressive outcome.

Those two people could be the exact same person. A cell phone keeps people connected to a network of people that can help get them a better job in the future in a way no other device can.

At any rate this paragraph sums up why we should be doing this in my opinion.

But the study also estimates that in an average week in 2025—the year after the House measure would take full effect—a $15-an-hour minimum wage would boost the pay of 17 million workers who would otherwise earn less than $15 per hour. It could also raise the pay of 10 million workers who otherwise would earn slightly more than $15 an hour. Raising the federal minimum to $15 would lift 1.3 million Americans out of poverty, the CBO said.

That's a net good for the economy.

One thing that would be interesting to see is if you have people who now make more, wanting less hours because whatever benefits they received (SNAP, child care vouchers) go away with the increase income. How does a business deal with that situation; replace the people who want less hours; keep their hours the same and tell them to walk if they can't come; give the people less hours and take on more head count? That can become a sticky situation for the employer and employee.

You think that people would suddenly want to work less so they can keep their relatively meager benefits as opposed to enjoying a job that pays them enough to get by without them?

Avatar image for joebones5000
#31 Edited by joebones5000 (2620 posts) -

@burntbyhellfire said:
@joebones5000 said:
@burntbyhellfire said:

then if employers give all their employees raises, thus raising the cost of their products and services to compensate for an increase in minimum wage, raising the expenses of all other citizens living in the country, you break even.. so you are admitting that minimum wage hikes have no actual effect on the poverty level, the bottom will always be the bottom

and if labor costs are lowered and one company doesnt lower the cost of their product to compensate, people wouldnt be able to afford them and sales drop while their competitors see it as an opportunity to lower the cost of their product to undercut their competitors.. competition in business is a fantastic thing, and minimum wage increases have never, nor will they ever drag anyone out of poverty as the market will adjust

Blahbitty blah blah. Prices go up every year, regardless. Dude, just stop with the horse shit. Did you not read what the TC posted? 27 million would benefit from a minimum wage hike. 1.3 million would be lifted out of poverty, according to the CBO.

Poverty in the U.S. was 22% in 1959. It is 11% now. Care to take a guess how many minimum wage hikes we've seen since 1959?

I don't know what to say here. You keep posting nonsense over and over that is the exact opposite of what has actually happened the 38x the minimum wage has been raised.

Instead of posting political nonsense, why not just read the facts?

you know what else has been declining since the late 50s? both the US income tax rate and the unemployment rate.. while there have been minimum wage hikes going back to the 1930s as poverty levels have jumped, and fallen, proving no correlation between changes in poverty rates and any changes to minimum wage laws, there is more of a correlation between it and decreases to income tax rates and unemployment levels. low levels of unemployment signifies a worker shortage, increasing the value of labor and increasing income levels

nobody is going to be lifted out of poverty, thats not how this works

You serious, or are you just trolling?

Let me ask you a serious question - How is anyone supposed to take you seriously when the things you say are not only contrary to real world observations, but also not what the prevailing wisdom and experts are telling us? You have to understand. The things you're writing just aren't adding up. I'm sorry.

Trump's own CBO is telling us that millions would benefit and 1.3 million would immediately be lifted from poverty.

Avatar image for Fuhrer_D
#32 Posted by Fuhrer_D (916 posts) -

@Serraph105 said:
@Fuhrer_D said:
@Serraph105 said:
@Fuhrer_D said:

When I stop a Wendy's and my eldest get a burger that has more than ketchup on it, and the 30 year old taking the order pulls and $900 cell phone out of their pocket, I think no.

When I see someone working hard at two jobs because one just isn't enough, I think yes.

All in all, I don't think it will have the intended progressive outcome.

Those two people could be the exact same person. A cell phone keeps people connected to a network of people that can help get them a better job in the future in a way no other device can.

At any rate this paragraph sums up why we should be doing this in my opinion.

But the study also estimates that in an average week in 2025—the year after the House measure would take full effect—a $15-an-hour minimum wage would boost the pay of 17 million workers who would otherwise earn less than $15 per hour. It could also raise the pay of 10 million workers who otherwise would earn slightly more than $15 an hour. Raising the federal minimum to $15 would lift 1.3 million Americans out of poverty, the CBO said.

That's a net good for the economy.

One thing that would be interesting to see is if you have people who now make more, wanting less hours because whatever benefits they received (SNAP, child care vouchers) go away with the increase income. How does a business deal with that situation; replace the people who want less hours; keep their hours the same and tell them to walk if they can't come; give the people less hours and take on more head count? That can become a sticky situation for the employer and employee.

You think that people would suddenly want to work less so they can keep their relatively meager benefits as opposed to enjoying a job that pays them enough to get by without them?

Work less, earn the same money, and keep their meager benefits, yes.

Especially when its it net loss for people; for example, bring in an extra $600 a month, but now have to pay for day care which is $800 a month.

It wouldn't surprise me if this has happened in areas where they jump to $15 an hour.

Avatar image for drunk_pi
#33 Posted by Drunk_PI (2815 posts) -

If you provide tax cuts to the rich, things will get more expensive...

How come I don't hear that argument? Oh wait... Because it's a bogus argument, just like the whole "raising the wage will raise prices."

Prices are already going up. Wages aren't.

Avatar image for tocool340
#34 Posted by tocool340 (21381 posts) -

Considering the cost of living appears to go up each year, I believe it should...

I doubt if minimum wage suddenly drops back down to $7.75/hour, the cost of living is gonna drop with it. Taxes will still go up, cost for merchandise will still rise, housing will still rise, etc. as they always have even when wages were stagnant....

Avatar image for watercrack445
#35 Edited by watercrack445 (1719 posts) -

That's why I like Andrew Yang's Ubi. Its a safety new of 1,000 dollars per month. could easily pay the bills and other necessitates. For higher income earners it could saved up for emergency use. We get the money by taxing the rich and corporations. Also, by transferring funding from other areas.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#36 Posted by LJS9502_basic (166853 posts) -

@drunk_pi said:

If you provide tax cuts to the rich, things will get more expensive...

How come I don't hear that argument? Oh wait... Because it's a bogus argument, just like the whole "raising the wage will raise prices."

Prices are already going up. Wages aren't.

Business wise when an expense increases so does the cost of the product.

Avatar image for joebones5000
#37 Posted by joebones5000 (2620 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:
@drunk_pi said:

If you provide tax cuts to the rich, things will get more expensive...

How come I don't hear that argument? Oh wait... Because it's a bogus argument, just like the whole "raising the wage will raise prices."

Prices are already going up. Wages aren't.

Business wise when an expense increases so does the cost of the product.

Not necessarily. Sometimes you can't raise prices and need to find the money elsewhere.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#38 Edited by LJS9502_basic (166853 posts) -

@joebones5000 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

Business wise when an expense increases so does the cost of the product.

Not necessarily. Sometimes you can't raise prices and need to find the money elsewhere.

That's not a valid business model.

Avatar image for baelnergal
#39 Posted by BaelNergal (570 posts) -

Actual science on a raised minimum wage shows mixed results; ultimately, averaged out from what I've seen in the studies, those most in need of any aid it can give neither benefit overall nor are hurt overall. In essence... it pretty much comes down to which metric you look at if you want to count it as a victory or defeat.

For example, two studies mentioned here: https://www.washington.edu/news/2019/02/06/two-new-studies-published-about-the-seattle-minimum-wage-ordinance/

Ultimately, going by all of the collated science to date? If you want to benefit the poor, minimum wage being raised has no appreciable across-the-board effects. It just changes the weighting of costs to have items contributing different amounts to the ongoing problem than they do otherwise.

So, by the science? It doesn't hurt, but it doesn't help either.

@foxhound_fox said:

American's wouldn't need a $15 minimum wage if the cost of living went down. You know, single-payer healthcare, lower taxes from not funding the giant corporate military system and government subsidized healthy food (take the HFCS funding and give it to produce farmers).

HFCS isn't subsidized. It's a byproduct of producing biofuel from corn. The portion of the environmental lobby that backs biofuels, and the corn lobby that joined forces with them, are why HFCS is still so cheap.

Avatar image for joebones5000
#40 Posted by joebones5000 (2620 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:
@joebones5000 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

Business wise when an expense increases so does the cost of the product.

Not necessarily. Sometimes you can't raise prices and need to find the money elsewhere.

That's not a valid business model.

Oh? Why not? I think you're just not thinking about it enough. I've noticed a disturbing trend in my favorite chocolate bars over the past decade. Prices haven't gone up, as people are only willing to pay so much for a candy bar, but the size of a bar has gone from 1.5 oz to 1.25 oz. I've also noticed that the packaging has changed. They aren't as ornately decorated with multi-color inks as they once were.

You think companies can't find savings in other areas that allow them to not raise prices?

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#41 Posted by LJS9502_basic (166853 posts) -

@joebones5000 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

That's not a valid business model.

Oh? Why not? I think you're just not thinking about it enough. I've noticed a disturbing trend in my favorite chocolate bars over the past decade. Prices haven't gone up, as people are only willing to pay so much for a candy bar, but the size of a bar has gone from 1.5 oz to 1.25 oz. I've also noticed that the packaging has changed. They aren't as ornately decorated with multi-color inks as they once were.

You think companies can't find savings in other areas that allow them to not raise prices?

As costs increase that increase is always pushed on to the consumers. Also while you can decrease products a bit you cannot continue to do that and that is STILL a cost increase. And there is no guarantee that your product will continue to sell. Consumers CAN see the difference in size and may opt for the larger candy at a higher price anyway because the value is perceived to be there.

Raising the minimum wage does impact the economy and generally increasing the cost of living.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
#42 Posted by mattbbpl (17345 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:
@drunk_pi said:

If you provide tax cuts to the rich, things will get more expensive...

How come I don't hear that argument? Oh wait... Because it's a bogus argument, just like the whole "raising the wage will raise prices."

Prices are already going up. Wages aren't.

Business wise when an expense increases so does the cost of the product.

It sounds pedantic, but that's a) often not the case and b) is never a 1:1 ratio.

Responding to @drunk_pi, it does.

Just on different items.

Paul Singer is famous for complaining about this and urging the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates while unemployment was still high in order to tamp this down.

Avatar image for joebones5000
#43 Edited by joebones5000 (2620 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:
@joebones5000 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

That's not a valid business model.

Oh? Why not? I think you're just not thinking about it enough. I've noticed a disturbing trend in my favorite chocolate bars over the past decade. Prices haven't gone up, as people are only willing to pay so much for a candy bar, but the size of a bar has gone from 1.5 oz to 1.25 oz. I've also noticed that the packaging has changed. They aren't as ornately decorated with multi-color inks as they once were.

You think companies can't find savings in other areas that allow them to not raise prices?

As costs increase that increase is always pushed on to the consumers. Also while you can decrease products a bit you cannot continue to do that and that is STILL a cost increase. And there is no guarantee that your product will continue to sell. Consumers CAN see the difference in size and may opt for the larger candy at a higher price anyway because the value is perceived to be there.

Raising the minimum wage does impact the economy and generally increasing the cost of living.

So what you're telling me is that companies can't find ways to decrease costs in some areas to make up for increases in costs in other areas. Sure they can. They do it all the time. I'm not claiming that prices never go up. Prices generally go up every year, regardless. I am also not claiming that raising the minimum doesn't increase the cost of living. It very well may for some. The point is that we can and should raise the minimum, just like we have for the past 38 times it's been raised. The sky didn't fall and everyone made it out okay. There is no valid argument against raising it.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#44 Posted by LJS9502_basic (166853 posts) -

@mattbbpl said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@drunk_pi said:

If you provide tax cuts to the rich, things will get more expensive...

How come I don't hear that argument? Oh wait... Because it's a bogus argument, just like the whole "raising the wage will raise prices."

Prices are already going up. Wages aren't.

Business wise when an expense increases so does the cost of the product.

It sounds pedantic, but that's a) often not the case and b) is never a 1:1 ratio.

Two things happen with increased minimum wage. Loss of jobs and/or increased cost of business which is passed on to the consumer. Either way it affects the economy and those on the bottom remain on the bottom. Or do you have valid studies showing people on minimum wage are suddenly no longer in that economic bracket?

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#45 Posted by LJS9502_basic (166853 posts) -

@joebones5000 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@joebones5000 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

That's not a valid business model.

Oh? Why not? I think you're just not thinking about it enough. I've noticed a disturbing trend in my favorite chocolate bars over the past decade. Prices haven't gone up, as people are only willing to pay so much for a candy bar, but the size of a bar has gone from 1.5 oz to 1.25 oz. I've also noticed that the packaging has changed. They aren't as ornately decorated with multi-color inks as they once were.

You think companies can't find savings in other areas that allow them to not raise prices?

As costs increase that increase is always pushed on to the consumers. Also while you can decrease products a bit you cannot continue to do that and that is STILL a cost increase. And there is no guarantee that your product will continue to sell. Consumers CAN see the difference in size and may opt for the larger candy at a higher price anyway because the value is perceived to be there.

Raising the minimum wage does impact the economy and generally increasing the cost of living.

So what you're telling me is that companies can't find ways to decrease costs in some areas to make up for increases in costs in other areas. Sure they can. They do it all the time. I'm not claiming that prices never go up. Prices generally go up every year, regardless. I am also not claiming that raising the minimum doesn't increase the cost of living. It very well may for some. The point is that we can and should raise the minimum, just like we have for the past 38 times it's been raised. The sky didn't fall and everyone made it out okay. There is no valid argument against raising it.

Well they can eliminate some jobs. That's helpful I'm sure to those on the bottom of the pay scale.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
#46 Edited by mattbbpl (17345 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic: The study cited in the OP itself states their positions are improved.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#47 Posted by LJS9502_basic (166853 posts) -

@mattbbpl said:

@LJS9502_basic: The study cited in the OP itself states their positions are improved.

Yes It mentions a loss of jobs.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
#48 Posted by mattbbpl (17345 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:
@mattbbpl said:

@LJS9502_basic: The study cited in the OP itself states their positions are improved.

Yes It mentions a loss of jobs.

Yep, and lifts over a million people out of poverty, raises the long stagnant wages of nearly 20 million, and reduces spending on SNAP alone by $150 billion. Seems like we could address the loss of jobs with some of that.

Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
#49 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (7234 posts) -

Get rid of minimum wage or bring it down to like $4/ hour. Then at the same time scrap patent laws, intellectual property rights, trademarks etc. The increased competition in all industries will create a labor shortage and raise wages for all.

Avatar image for joebones5000
#50 Posted by joebones5000 (2620 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

Well they can eliminate some jobs. That's helpful I'm sure to those on the bottom of the pay scale.

Sure. They can find new insurance providers, retool product packaging by changing to less expensive materials, improve efficiency, lay off workers, etc.