ADVERTISEMENT

[February 8] WaPo: Congressional Budget Office report finds $15 minimum wage would cause a loss of 1.4 million jobs by 2025 but lower poverty levels

That's mighty thoughtful of you to force those evil bosses to pay their employees what you or other political "thinkers" think they should. Never mind those small business owners that can't afford the wage increase, right? Isn't it funny how people who have never owned a business or in many cases even worked in the private sector trying to tell the entire country what they need to pay. Oh, and don't forget that once you raise the minimum wage to $15 every business needs to lay off workers or raise revenue to pay the increase. Thus raising inflation and counter acting the benefit or the higher wage. Then we start all over again. Brilliant.

Raise the price of your goods or services. It's not that hard and people will pay an extra 50 cents on their meal without complaining. But yeah, people should be able to afford to house themselves if they work for you full time.
 
The thing about this is it will include all high school and part time workers in retail jobs everywhere. These kids do not deserve to be paid what people work years to make. It's short sighted and will not fix the problems that some people think it will.
 
This may be obvious to some of you who with a better understanding of macroeconomics, but:

1. How would raising the minimum wage impact the federal budget deficit?
2. The article says nothing about inflation. Wouldn't raising the minimum wage create inflationary pressure?
 
Out of curiosity, I wanted to see how my first job at minimum wage would be in today's dollars.

In 1988, I had a job at Eicher's greenhouse where I made $3.35/hr. In today's dollars, that would be $7.41/hr (121.1% - Cumulative rate of inflation).

I want adults to have access to $15/hr. It's a living wage. My issue is kids/teenagers working their first jobs getting the same pay. What do people think of adjusting/lowering the min. for minors?
 
Raise the price of your goods or services. It's not that hard and people will pay an extra 50 cents on their meal without complaining. But yeah, people should be able to afford to house themselves if they work for you full time.

Do you have any experience in business? What do you do for a living?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Old_wrestling_fan
They already do,.. there is no reason for a working adult to be stuck in a minimum wage job.
You are probably right for most. There are exceptions though, especially in areas where there just aren't jobs.
 
It's not a hard concept. Your expenses increase, you raise the price of your services to compensate. Everyone is playing by the same rules.

No, it’s not. Small and large businesses do not ‘play by the same rules’. Neither does Amazon. Not every market is the same either, rural/urban and high/low cost of living. No offense Bio, but your position here is wildly naive.

I can’t see how this doesn’t crush small business.
 
According to the CBO report, the CBO is estimating that a $15 federal minimum wage would cost 1.4 million jobs by 2025 and increase the deficit by $54 billion over ten years, however the CBO report also estimates that increasing the minimum wage would lift 900,000 people out of poverty and raise income for 17 million people — about one in ten workers:
February 8, 2021

Raising the minimum wage to $15-an-hour would significantly reduce poverty and increase earnings for millions of low wage workers, while adding to the federal deficit and cutting overall employment, according to a new study from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The report is sure to animate the already heated debate whether to include raising the federal minimum wage in a budget resolution to help the sputtering economic recovery and aid vaccine distribution amid the pressures of the pandemic.
On one hand, the CBO estimated that raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would cost 1.4 million jobs by 2025 and increase the deficit by $54 billion over ten years.

But it also estimated the policy change would lift 900,000 people out of poverty and raise income for 17 million people — about one in ten workers. Another 10 million who have wages just above that amount could potentially see increases as well, the CBO noted.

The net pay going to the country’s workers would grow substantially, by $333 billion, as the increase in pay for workers would more than double the amount subtracted by the workers who lose their job, according to the estimate.
The minimum wage proposal has split the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party from moderates such as Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), who has said that he does not support the proposal.

The existing federal minimum wage, at $7.25 an hour, has not been changed since 2009 and remains below historic levels when adjusted for inflation, despite gains in worker productivity.

Supporters of increasing the minimum wage highlighted the CBO’s findings about poverty reduction.

“Today’s report makes clear what we’ve known all along: raising the minimum wage—which hasn’t increased since 2009—to $15 an hour isn’t just the right thing to do, it’s good policy ,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), chair of the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee, said in a statement.
until poverty level is increased so that there can be more victims
 
  • Like
Reactions: Old_wrestling_fan
No, it’s not. Small and large businesses do not ‘play by the same rules’. Neither does Amazon. Not every market is the same either, rural/urban and high/low cost of living. No offense Bio, but your position here is wildly naive.

I can’t see how this doesn’t crush small business.

Then I guess the business experts who study this stuff are naive too. And so is the data (can data be naive?). Anyway, historically the data shows that raising minimum wage actually tends to help small businesses. Mainly because people actually have money to spend.

 
It's not a hard concept. Your expenses increase, you raise the price of your services to compensate. Everyone is playing by the same rules.
For retail/ecommerce in particular, it's not that simple as your prices are higher than others. Most retail operates based on set markups, so you can see that just adding cost on items, doesn't really work. Can you add cost? Yes, but at what cost? Losing your customers? As others have stated in this thread, if you are worth $15/hr, you are probably getting that already. Does a minimally skilled 14 year old, deserve the same $15/hr as a 40 year old skilled worker? I don't believe they should.
 
Last edited:
You are probably right for most. There are exceptions though, especially in areas where there just aren't jobs.

Then you go to where the work is,.. We used to be a mobile society but our social safety nets seem to have destroyed that..
 
A job is a job is a job. Any job that is worked full time should provide enough money to provide for food, clothing, housing, and transportation.

What if a person doesn't produce enough value to attain the things you think they should have?
The items you mention exist across a spectrum of prices.
When my income was much lower I sought roommates to split expenses like housing so I could live in a nicer house/neighborhood than I could afford by myself. I drove cheaper cars, etc.

Why create a law that makes low skilled people with less value to add unemployable? How do they build their skills and value to the business and earning power if you cut the bottom rungs off the ladder?
Instead of a teenager (or a functionally illiterate 30-something) behind the fast food counter it's going to be a kiosk.

Your business model is just going to have to incorporate that into it. Since there are many bosses who obviously won't do that on their own, then they need to be forced to do it.

If a person is worth $15/hr they can start their own business and prove it, right?
Then they're the boss and who is left to blame when they don't earn what you think they should earn?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Old_wrestling_fan
What if a person doesn't produce enough value to attain the things you think they should have?

WTF is this even supposed to mean? If they have a job and they work full time then they produce enough value to attain money for food, clothing, housing, and transportation. It doesn't matter what the job is. If it isn't worth paying someone a living wage then it isn't worth paying anybody anything and you can do it yourself. Your view is unbelievably inhumane.
 
WTF is this even supposed to mean? If they have a job and they work full time then they produce enough value to attain money for food, clothing, housing, and transportation. It doesn't matter what the job is. If it isn't worth paying someone a living wage then it isn't worth paying anybody anything and you can do it yourself. Your view is unbelievably inhumane.


Address these questions and find your answer:
If a person is worth $15/hr they can start their own business and prove it, right?
Then they're the boss and who is left to blame when they don't earn what you think they should earn?
 
Address these questions and find your answer:
If a person is worth $15/hr they can start their own business and prove it, right?
Then they're the boss and who is left to blame when they don't earn what you think they should earn?

You refuse to acknowledge my point. I feel that people who work full time should earn enough to afford food, clothing, housing, and transportation (that's the third time I've had to explain this to you). If you don't feel that people should be able to afford to live even though they work full time, well, that's a you problem and makes you a pretty miserable human being. You can try to keep deflecting away from that but if you don't want to be regarded as a callous, selfish asshole, then don't support views that make you a callous, selfish asshole. Oh, and I really hope you don't call yourself a Christian either, because Jesus would not support your views here either.
 
You refuse to acknowledge my point.

I acknowledge your feelings in the matter, but I don't think they make a point.

I just want a task done, we find a mutually agreed rate or we don't make the exchange of my money for their time.
I pay someone to mow my lawn.
They show up twice a month 8 months of the year, and once a month 4 months of the year.
Is it now incumbent upon me to ensure he can afford the kind of lifestyle you think he should have?
Or is that their responsibility?

Oh, and I really hope you don't call yourself a Christian either, because Jesus would not support your views here either.

I've never called myself a Christian.
If I was going to pray to a god I'd pick a cool one like Thoth.

I think that a person's standard of living is their responsibility to achieve.
I think it is callous and misguided to preclude low skill workers from being able to pursue employment simply because you, as a third party to the exchange, don't like how much value the two parties to the exchange place on the exchange.


Let’s work through an example. Suppose 100 yards of fence could be built using one of two techniques. You could hire three low-skilled workers for $15 each, or you could hire one high-skilled worker for $40. Either way, you get the same 100 yards of fence built. If you sought maximum profits, which production technique would you employ? I’m guessing that you’d hire one high-skilled worker and pay him $40 rather than hire three low-skilled workers for $15 each. Your labor costs would be $40 rather than $45.

Suppose the high-skilled worker came into your office and demanded $55 a day. What would be your response? You’d probably tell him to go play in the traffic and hire the three low-skilled workers. After all, hiring the three low-skilled workers for $45, to get the same 100 yards of fence, would be cheaper than the $55 a day now demanded by the high-skilled worker.

The high-skilled worker is not stupid and knows that’s exactly what you’d do. He will do a bit of organizing first, convincing decent, caring people that low-skilled workers are being exploited and not earning a living wage and that Congress should enact a minimum wage in the fencing industry of at least $20. After Congress enacts a minimum wage of $20, what then happens to the chances of a high-skilled worker’s successfully demanding $55 a day? They go up because he’s used the coercive powers of Congress to price his competition out of the market. Because of the minimum wage, it would cost you $60 to use the three low-skilled workers.

The minimum wage not only discriminates against low-skilled workers but also is one of the most effective tools of racists everywhere. Our nation’s first minimum wage came in the form of the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931.

During the legislative debate over the Davis-Bacon Act, which sets minimum wages on federally financed or assisted construction projects, racist intents were obvious. Rep. John Cochran, D-Mo., supported the bill, saying he had “received numerous complaints in recent months about Southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics getting work and bringing the employees from the South.”

Rep. Miles Allgood, D-Ala., complained: “That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country.” Rep. William Upshaw, D-Ga., spoke of the “superabundance or large aggregation of Negro labor.” American Federation of Labor President William Green said, “Colored labor is being sought to demoralize wage rates.” The Davis-Bacon Act, still on the books today, virtually eliminated blacks from federally financed construction projects when it was passed.

During South Africa’s apartheid era, the secretary of its avowedly racist Building Workers’ Union, Gert Beetge, said, “There is no job reservation left in the building industry, and in the circumstances, I support the rate for the job (minimum wage) as the second-best way of protecting our white artisans.” The South African Nursing Council condemned low wages received by black nurses as unfair. Some nurses said they wouldn’t accept wage increases until the wages of black nurses were raised. The South African Economic and Wage Commission of 1925 reported that “while definite exclusion of the Natives from the more remunerative fields of employment by law has not been urged upon us, the same result would follow a certain use of the powers of the Wage Board under the Wage Act of 1925, or of other wage-fixing legislation. The method would be to fix a minimum rate for an occupation or craft so high that no Native would be likely to be employed.”

Whether support for minimum wages is motivated by good or by evil, its effect is to cut off the bottom rungs of the economic ladder for the most disadvantaged worker and lower the cost of discrimination.


-Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TarponSpringsNole
Well, I guess now I understand why you feel that people working full time and not being able to afford the basic necessities is ok in your book. I find it immoral. Again, that's a you problem. Good luck.
 
Well, I guess now I understand why you feel that people working full time and not being able to afford the basic necessities is ok in your book. I find it immoral. Again, that's a you problem. Good luck.

I think the laws that racists demand to exclude low skill (and more often minority) workers are immoral.
But I notice you didn't address any of my points.

If I want to pay someone to mow my lawn, is it then incumbent upon me to ensure they have a living standard that meets your approval?
 
You refuse to acknowledge my point. I feel that people who work full time should earn enough to afford food, clothing, housing, and transportation (that's the third time I've had to explain this to you). If you don't feel that people should be able to afford to live even though they work full time, well, that's a you problem and makes you a pretty miserable human being. You can try to keep deflecting away from that but if you don't want to be regarded as a callous, selfish asshole, then don't support views that make you a callous, selfish asshole. Oh, and I really hope you don't call yourself a Christian either, because Jesus would not support your views here either.

Link to any teachings of Jesus that indicate that:

Full time = just 40 hours of work per week. (I know all kinds of people who at various points in their lives worked more, and in some cases many more, hours in order to earn enough to support themselves.)

You can't have a roommate, etc, to share housing costs to make ends meet.

If you are going to speak on behalf of Jesus I would really be interested in where you drawing your information from that supports your position.
 
Link to any teachings of Jesus that indicate that:

Full time = just 40 hours of work per week. (I know all kinds of people who at various points in their lives worked more, and in some cases many more, hours in order to earn enough to support themselves.)

You can't have a roommate, etc, to share housing costs to make ends meet.

If you are going to speak on behalf of Jesus I would really be interested in where you drawing your information from that supports your position.

Jesus taught the poor should be fed and the sick should be taken care of. It's pretty silly that you would ask where Jesus talks about the 40 hour work week. You might as well ask him about the orbital mechanics of Jupiter's moons. They are concepts that didn't exist then. However, making sure everyone is paid a living wage is a way to ensure that people are properly fed, which Jesus did support. I suppose you could also go with just giving people their food and shelter but I'm pretty sure I know what the response to that will be. If people want to go for universal basic income then, yeah, I've got no problem with eliminating the minimum wage. Go for it.
 
Jesus taught the poor should be fed and the sick should be taken care of. It's pretty silly that you would ask where Jesus talks about the 40 hour work week. You might as well ask him about the orbital mechanics of Jupiter's moons. They are concepts that didn't exist then. However, making sure everyone is paid a living wage is a way to ensure that people are properly fed, which Jesus did support. I suppose you could also go with just giving people their food and shelter but I'm pretty sure I know what the response to that will be. If people want to go for universal basic income then, yeah, I've got no problem with eliminating the minimum wage. Go for it.

Short version...you are conflating certain teachings of Jesus and ignoring others...apparently to suit your feelings. There is no Biblical mandate, or anything like that, regarding a minimum, or living, wage.

That you cannot provide any specific backup to your claim is telling. Nothing about the minimum wage prevents anyone from providing charity to another person or otherwise addresses anyone helping someone else.
 
some studies are saying day care costs would increase 21%
 
@BioHawk


Still curious your thoughts on the following:

If a person is worth $15/hr they can start their own business and prove it, right?
Then they're the boss and who is left to blame when they don't earn what you think they should earn?
 
BioHawk doesn't seem to grasp that in his scenario non-productive workers,.. (those who can't perform to a level that would support their $15/hr),.. simply won't have jobs, or at least not full time jobs..
 
Why stop at $15 an hour? Make it $30 dollars an hour if we're just pulling numbers out of the sky. Imagine how many people's income's would be impacted by raising the min wage to $30?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Old_wrestling_fan
@BioHawk


Still curious your thoughts on the following:

If a person is worth $15/hr they can start their own business and prove it, right?
Then they're the boss and who is left to blame when they don't earn what you think they should earn?

Well, I still want to know wtf you are talking about with this. You're going to have to explain whatever point you are trying to make here better if you want any kind of response to this. Your scenario seems so open ended that there are a million situations that could fit this.
 
Short version...you are conflating certain teachings of Jesus and ignoring others...apparently to suit your feelings. There is no Biblical mandate, or anything like that, regarding a minimum, or living, wage.

That you cannot provide any specific backup to your claim is telling. Nothing about the minimum wage prevents anyone from providing charity to another person or otherwise addresses anyone helping someone else.

The fact that you didn't actually read what I wrote or you didn't understand the point I was making is telling. I mean, I could go and link a bunch of parts of the bible demonstrating Jesus's opinion that we need to care for the poor but I'm feeling lazy and if you don't already know that then I'm not going to change your mind with anything I post here.
 
The fact that you didn't actually read what I wrote or you didn't understand the point I was making is telling. I mean, I could go and link a bunch of parts of the bible demonstrating Jesus's opinion that we need to care for the poor but I'm feeling lazy and if you don't already know that then I'm not going to change your mind with anything I post here.

So...a lot of words there when you could have just admitted that you have no specifics to back your assertions.
 
The people that don’t work, don’t because they are too lazy or dependent on the government to take care of them. They wouldn’t work for $25 an hour. You will see higher prices across the board from fuel, clothes and groceries if they raise the minimum wage that high for part time kids or they just won’t hire them anyway because they won’t be able to afford it.
 
This could be a stupid question, and maybe it's already been discussed, but why the jump automatically to $15?Could they not try like $10 or $11 and see what that might do to balance things out?
Maybe I'm missing something or ignorant, so please explain to me why this isn't a plausible idea.
Florida voters passed a constitutional amendment in November that will increase the minimum wage a $1 a year until it reaches $15. It was a bit of a surprise that it passed, especially since amendments require a 60% pass rate. It will be interesting to see what happens. I had mixed feelings about it and voted no because I believe the cons outweigh the pros.
 
So...a lot of words there when you could have just admitted that you have no specifics to back your assertions.

Nah, I just don't give a shit about your opinion on this enough to spend the time doing it. But hey, feel proud about yourself. You do you.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT