Jump to content

The minimum wage rate should be annually adjusted by the cost-price in


Recommended Posts

The minimum wage rate should be annually adjusted by the cost-price index.

 

Opponents of the federal minimum wage, (FMW) believe the federal minimum wage rate is a primary or particular driver of the U.S. dollar’s inflation; that falsehood is one of their rationalizations to support their predisposition to oppose the FMW rate.

 

FMW rate increases are political determinations and have always been reactions to the U.S. dollar’s inflation over a duration of years. Usually each minimum rate increase did not fully reflect the total rate of the dollar’s inflation over the duration, (usually years) since the prior minimum rate increase.

Enterprises ‘ price increases are a reaction to market forces that include but are not limited to additional costs reflecting any increase of the FMW rate. Enterprises usually, (if not always) react quicker than the U.S. Congress.

 

All price increases contribute to the U.S. dollar’s rate of inflation. But due to the afore mentioned reasons, FMW rate increases are less a cause and more (than price increases due to other causes), a victim of the dollar’s inflation.

 

Opponents pretend that minimum wage only affects the very poorest of the working poor. Except in the cases of jobs requiring labor that’s in short supply, all wage scales are related to each other; (i.e. the tide raises all boats). The minimum wage’s relationship to ALL other wage and salary rates (but excluding jobs with labor shortages), is inversely related to the purchasing power differences between the minimum and the jobs’ rates.

 

(I.e. proportionally the minimum rate is of greater benefit to lesser earners and of lesser benefit to greater earners purchasing powers but all employees benefit from the minimum rate). Thus the minimum rate significantly increases the earners’ purchasing powers for no less than USA’s lowest quarter of our entire employee population.

 

Opponents object to the minimum rate intervening between employee- employer negotiations. There’s no intervention, there’s the same legal .0 minimum for all tasks but no maximum upon any pay scales.

 

Opponents believe that the absolute poorest of the working poor’s wages should, (similar to other goods and product services), be subject to the free competitive market.

 

There are fewer employers and more unskilled job applicants. There is rarely if ever a shortage of unskilled labor. Employers can delay some tasks until they can be performed at lesser cost.

It’s contended that the unskilled labor markets’ are less than flat equitable market; the FMW rate is justified and its elimination would be detrimental to our economy.

 

It’s further contended that to the extent our FMW rate does not keep pace with the U.S. dollar’s inflation, it is adverse to our economy. The minimum rate should be annually updated in the same manner as we now update social security retirement s. Those benefits remain subject to our three federal branches government but rather non-partisan statisticians annually apply explicitly drafted formulas to determine their updates.

 

The FMW in 1968 was $1.60/Hr. Applying the cost- price urban index to that, it was equivalent to $10.69 in 2013 dollars. The minim rate should be increased gradually but $9/Hr is a low ball rate. I advocate for five years a dollar be annually added to the minimum rate prior to the index being applied. After five years, only the index should be annually applied to the minimum rate.

 

Respectfully, Supposn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

How about we make the minimum wage $50 an hour, won't change the station in life of the burger flippers, they'll still be in the same position they are now because the rest of us will be making $400 an hour. Income is all relative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about we make the minimum wage $50 an hour, won't change the station in life of the burger flippers, they'll still be in the same position they are now because the rest of us will be making $400 an hour. Income is all relative.

As is cost.

 

In 2000, The average house cost $169,000

Equivalent today: $214,737

The average car cost $23,000

Equivalent today: $29,225

The average wage was $32,155

Equivalent today: $40,857

 

In 2011, The average house costs $218,200

The average car costs $28,150

The average wage is $44,670

 

(http://thecostofliving.com)

 

In 11 years, the average wage went up $3,813, but the average car price went slightly down, while the average house price went slightly up.

 

Raising wages will just raise costs, and people will be no better off financially than they were before the change. While things level off, however, many will lose hours, and even jobs, and the social assistance rolls will increase, causing more taxes, causing all of us to be worse off in one fashion or another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Wages" are the price of labor. If you mandate an increase in wages, any product or service that utilizes labor will necessarily increase in price. Thus, while everybody now has more dollars, it requires more dollars to keep up the same standard of living, resulting in almost zero net change. The minimum wage is like a jack lifting a car. You can raise it as much as you want, but the tires will always remain at the bottom of the car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When discussing average wages, does the topic of economic inequality become relevant?

 

It would if it wasn't up to YOU to make your own income......

 

The minimum wage rate should be annually adjusted by the cost-price index.

 

Opponents of the federal minimum wage, (FMW) believe the federal minimum wage rate is a primary or particular driver of the U.S. dollar’s inflation; that falsehood is one of their rationalizations to support their predisposition to oppose the FMW rate.

 

FMW rate increases are political determinations and have always been reactions to the U.S. dollar’s inflation over a duration of years. Usually each minimum rate increase did not fully reflect the total rate of the dollar’s inflation over the duration, (usually years) since the prior minimum rate increase.

Enterprises ‘ price increases are a reaction to market forces that include but are not limited to additional costs reflecting any increase of the FMW rate. Enterprises usually, (if not always) react quicker than the U.S. Congress.

 

All price increases contribute to the U.S. dollar’s rate of inflation. But due to the afore mentioned reasons, FMW rate increases are less a cause and more (than price increases due to other causes), a victim of the dollar’s inflation.

 

Opponents pretend that minimum wage only affects the very poorest of the working poor. Except in the cases of jobs requiring labor that’s in short supply, all wage scales are related to each other; (i.e. the tide raises all boats). The minimum wage’s relationship to ALL other wage and salary rates (but excluding jobs with labor shortages), is inversely related to the purchasing power differences between the minimum and the jobs’ rates.

 

(I.e. proportionally the minimum rate is of greater benefit to lesser earners and of lesser benefit to greater earners purchasing powers but all employees benefit from the minimum rate). Thus the minimum rate significantly increases the earners’ purchasing powers for no less than USA’s lowest quarter of our entire employee population.

 

Opponents object to the minimum rate intervening between employee- employer negotiations. There’s no intervention, there’s the same legal .0 minimum for all tasks but no maximum upon any pay scales.

 

Opponents believe that the absolute poorest of the working poor’s wages should, (similar to other goods and product services), be subject to the free competitive market.

 

There are fewer employers and more unskilled job applicants. There is rarely if ever a shortage of unskilled labor. Employers can delay some tasks until they can be performed at lesser cost.

It’s contended that the unskilled labor markets’ are less than flat equitable market; the FMW rate is justified and its elimination would be detrimental to our economy.

 

It’s further contended that to the extent our FMW rate does not keep pace with the U.S. dollar’s inflation, it is adverse to our economy. The minimum rate should be annually updated in the same manner as we now update social security retirement s. Those benefits remain subject to our three federal branches government but rather non-partisan statisticians annually apply explicitly drafted formulas to determine their updates.

 

The FMW in 1968 was $1.60/Hr. Applying the cost- price urban index to that, it was equivalent to $10.69 in 2013 dollars. The minim rate should be increased gradually but $9/Hr is a low ball rate. I advocate for five years a dollar be annually added to the minimum rate prior to the index being applied. After five years, only the index should be annually applied to the minimum rate.

 

Respectfully, Supposn

 

5% of workers make minimum wage and roughly half are under 26. WHY YOU HATE PIMPLY FACED TEENAGERS!?!?!?!?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The minimum wage rate should be annually adjusted by the cost-price index.

 

Opponents of the federal minimum wage, (FMW) believe the federal minimum wage rate is a primary or particular driver of the U.S. dollar’s inflation; that falsehood is one of their rationalizations to support their predisposition to oppose the FMW rate.

 

FMW rate increases are political determinations and have always been reactions to the U.S. dollar’s inflation over a duration of years. Usually each minimum rate increase did not fully reflect the total rate of the dollar’s inflation over the duration, (usually years) since the prior minimum rate increase.

Enterprises ‘ price increases are a reaction to market forces that include but are not limited to additional costs reflecting any increase of the FMW rate. Enterprises usually, (if not always) react quicker than the U.S. Congress.

 

All price increases contribute to the U.S. dollar’s rate of inflation. But due to the afore mentioned reasons, FMW rate increases are less a cause and more (than price increases due to other causes), a victim of the dollar’s inflation.

 

Opponents pretend that minimum wage only affects the very poorest of the working poor. Except in the cases of jobs requiring labor that’s in short supply, all wage scales are related to each other; (i.e. the tide raises all boats). The minimum wage’s relationship to ALL other wage and salary rates (but excluding jobs with labor shortages), is inversely related to the purchasing power differences between the minimum and the jobs’ rates.

 

(I.e. proportionally the minimum rate is of greater benefit to lesser earners and of lesser benefit to greater earners purchasing powers but all employees benefit from the minimum rate). Thus the minimum rate significantly increases the earners’ purchasing powers for no less than USA’s lowest quarter of our entire employee population.

 

Opponents object to the minimum rate intervening between employee- employer negotiations. There’s no intervention, there’s the same legal .0 minimum for all tasks but no maximum upon any pay scales.

 

Opponents believe that the absolute poorest of the working poor’s wages should, (similar to other goods and product services), be subject to the free competitive market.

 

There are fewer employers and more unskilled job applicants. There is rarely if ever a shortage of unskilled labor. Employers can delay some tasks until they can be performed at lesser cost.

It’s contended that the unskilled labor markets’ are less than flat equitable market; the FMW rate is justified and its elimination would be detrimental to our economy.

 

It’s further contended that to the extent our FMW rate does not keep pace with the U.S. dollar’s inflation, it is adverse to our economy. The minimum rate should be annually updated in the same manner as we now update social security retirement s. Those benefits remain subject to our three federal branches government but rather non-partisan statisticians annually apply explicitly drafted formulas to determine their updates.

 

The FMW in 1968 was $1.60/Hr. Applying the cost- price urban index to that, it was equivalent to $10.69 in 2013 dollars. The minim rate should be increased gradually but $9/Hr is a low ball rate. I advocate for five years a dollar be annually added to the minimum rate prior to the index being applied. After five years, only the index should be annually applied to the minimum rate.

 

Respectfully, Supposn

You are a fan of minimum wage laws, huh? Then I have a couple of simple questions for you-

 

1. Where do you think all this extra money is going to come from in the long term? Is it just going to be magically conjured out of thin air just by passing a law?

 

2. Considering the fact that minimum wage laws are devastating to blacks, why are you libs always in favor of these laws? Are you just a bunch of racist bigots that long for your past glory days in the KKK or something?

 

I have asked these simple questions of numerous other libs on this board, and I have yet to receive a rational answer. All the other libs just end up running away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the market should always determine what the wage is. the govt has no business setting "minimum wages" and forcing excess cost down businesses throat.

 

I suppose this also means you're opposed to the government setting maximum wages, huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The minimum wage rate should be annually adjusted by the cost-price index.

 

Opponents of the federal minimum wage, (FMW) believe the federal minimum wage rate is a primary or particular driver of the U.S. dollar’s inflation; that falsehood is one of their rationalizations to support their predisposition to oppose the FMW rate.

 

FMW rate increases are political determinations and have always been reactions to the U.S. dollar’s inflation over a duration of years. Usually each minimum rate increase did not fully reflect the total rate of the dollar’s inflation over the duration, (usually years) since the prior minimum rate increase.

Enterprises ‘ price increases are a reaction to market forces that include but are not limited to additional costs reflecting any increase of the FMW rate. Enterprises usually, (if not always) react quicker than the U.S. Congress.

 

All price increases contribute to the U.S. dollar’s rate of inflation. But due to the afore mentioned reasons, FMW rate increases are less a cause and more (than price increases due to other causes), a victim of the dollar’s inflation.

 

Opponents pretend that minimum wage only affects the very poorest of the working poor. Except in the cases of jobs requiring labor that’s in short supply, all wage scales are related to each other; (i.e. the tide raises all boats). The minimum wage’s relationship to ALL other wage and salary rates (but excluding jobs with labor shortages), is inversely related to the purchasing power differences between the minimum and the jobs’ rates.

 

(I.e. proportionally the minimum rate is of greater benefit to lesser earners and of lesser benefit to greater earners purchasing powers but all employees benefit from the minimum rate). Thus the minimum rate significantly increases the earners’ purchasing powers for no less than USA’s lowest quarter of our entire employee population.

 

Opponents object to the minimum rate intervening between employee- employer negotiations. There’s no intervention, there’s the same legal .0 minimum for all tasks but no maximum upon any pay scales.

 

Opponents believe that the absolute poorest of the working poor’s wages should, (similar to other goods and product services), be subject to the free competitive market.

 

There are fewer employers and more unskilled job applicants. There is rarely if ever a shortage of unskilled labor. Employers can delay some tasks until they can be performed at lesser cost.

It’s contended that the unskilled labor markets’ are less than flat equitable market; the FMW rate is justified and its elimination would be detrimental to our economy.

 

It’s further contended that to the extent our FMW rate does not keep pace with the U.S. dollar’s inflation, it is adverse to our economy. The minimum rate should be annually updated in the same manner as we now update social security retirement s. Those benefits remain subject to our three federal branches government but rather non-partisan statisticians annually apply explicitly drafted formulas to determine their updates.

 

The FMW in 1968 was $1.60/Hr. Applying the cost- price urban index to that, it was equivalent to $10.69 in 2013 dollars. The minim rate should be increased gradually but $9/Hr is a low ball rate. I advocate for five years a dollar be annually added to the minimum rate prior to the index being applied. After five years, only the index should be annually applied to the minimum rate.

 

Respectfully, Supposn

I agree . The houses get pay increases yearly attached to cost of living increase . Why not .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are a fan of minimum wage laws, huh? Then I have a couple of simple questions for you-

 

1. Where do you think all this extra money is going to come from in the long term? Is it just going to be magically conjured out of thin air just by passing a law?

 

2. Considering the fact that minimum wage laws are devastating to blacks, why are you libs always in favor of these laws? Are you just a bunch of racist bigots that long for your past glory days in the KKK or something?

 

I have asked these simple questions of numerous other libs on this board, and I have yet to receive a rational answer. All the other libs just end up running away.

For number one uh yeah it is how the banks got bailed out and how America pays for all un-Constitutional wars. Why minimum wage can't increase to keep pace with inflation should be addressed.

 

For number 2 how is minimum wage devastating to blacks ?

 

the market should always determine what the wage is. the govt has no business setting "minimum wages" and forcing excess cost down businesses throat.

Right CEOs should earn 500:1 what their employees earn. They should drive cadilacs while the employees take the bus to work.

 

Let's bring back slave labor yay !!!!!!!! It works so well in communist-China. Let's get rid fo OSHA too, safety who needs it.

 

Read about the history of labor in this country and try to understand why we have OSHA, the Department of labor and the better business beaureu.

 

 

I suppose this also means you're opposed to the government setting maximum wages, huh?

Watch it you may be accued of being a communist.... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The minimum wage sounds nice on the surface: workers earning $8 per hour would certainly be better off if they were earning $12 per hour instead. But economics professor Antony Davies explains that this view of the minimum wage overlooks an important detail: The minimum wage does not force employers to pay a particular wage to every worker; it forces employers to pay a particular wage to every worker they choose to keep. While the minimum wage may be a well-intentioned public policy, it often hurts the very workers most in need of our help."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The minimum wage sounds nice on the surface: workers earning $8 per hour would certainly be better off if they were earning $12 per hour instead. But economics professor Antony Davies explains that this view of the minimum wage overlooks an important detail: The minimum wage does not force employers to pay a particular wage to every worker; it forces employers to pay a particular wage to every worker they choose to keep. While the minimum wage may be a well-intentioned public policy, it often hurts the very workers most in need of our help."

 

 

This is horsesh!t..... every time the minimum wage goes up the economy improves.

 

Banks just need to lend more money to more businesses so they can create the jobs.

 

It isn't minimum wage that is keeping a recovery slow it is the fact that banks won't lend to businesses right now unless they are a coffee shop or a service sector job.

 

Yeah let's have no minimum wage and we'll be back to 50 cent an hour wage working 15-18 hour days soon enough.

 

Again government needs to be the economic regulator/bank regulator if an economy is to thrive at all.

 

This professor should be more concerned with the guerilla economic policies of Communist-China. Of course when you are on the government dole what do they really know about economics anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is horsesh!t..... every time the minimum wage goes up the economy improves.

 

No it does not.

 

Banks just need to lend more money to more businesses so they can create the jobs.

 

It isn't minimum wage that is keeping a recovery slow it is the fact that banks won't lend to businesses right now unless they are a coffee shop or a service sector job.

 

Incorrect statement, you simply must be credit worthy.

 

Yeah let's have no minimum wage and we'll be back to 50 cent an hour wage working 15-18 hour days soon enough.

Simply a talking point with zero basis in fact..

 

Again government needs to be the economic regulator/bank regulator if an economy is to thrive at all.

 

The gov't tends to make a clusterfuck of everything they touch.

 

This professor should be more concerned with the guerilla economic policies of Communist-China. Of course when you are on the government dole what do they really know about economics anyway.

 

The US needs to get of its ass and compete. The playing field has never been level and never will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For number one uh yeah it is how the banks got bailed out and how America pays for all un-Constitutional wars.

Are you claiming the government gives money to businesses to pay their employee's extra wages when the minimum wage is increased???

 

Why minimum wage can't increase to keep pace with inflation should be addressed.

Because the minimum wage is very harmful to the least-skilled workers (and the economy in general) and should be abolished completely, that's why.

 

For number 2 how is minimum wage devastating to blacks ?

By greatly increasing the unemployment rate of unskilled blacks. This should be common knowledge.

youth_unemployment_2007_2010.gif

 

This was the explicit intent of the democrat politician's that passed the first minimum wage laws - Link.

 

 

Let us go back a few generations in the United States. We need not speculate about racial discrimination because it was openly spelled out in laws in the Southern states, where most blacks lived, and was not unknown in the North.

 

Yet in the late 1940s, the unemployment rate among young black men was not only far lower than it is today but was not very different from unemployment rates among young whites the same ages. Every census from 1890 through 1930 showed labor force participation rates for blacks to be as high as, or higher than, labor force participation rates among whites.

 

Why are things so different today in the United States -- and so different among Muslim young men in France? That is where economics comes in.

 

People who are less in demand -- whether because of inexperience, lower skills, or race -- are just as employable at lower pay rates as people who are in high demand are at higher pay rates. That is why blacks were just as able to find jobs as whites were, prior to the decade of the 1930s and why a serious gap in unemployment between black teenagers and white teenagers opened up only after 1950.

 

Prior to the decade of the 1930s, the wages of inexperienced and unskilled labor were determined by supply and demand. There was no federal minimum wage law and labor unions did not usually organize inexperienced and unskilled workers. That is why such workers were able to find jobs, just like everyone else, even when these were black workers in an era of open discrimination.

 

The first federal minimum wage law, the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, was passed in part explicitly to prevent black construction workers from "taking jobs" from white construction workers by working for lower wages. It was not meant to protect black workers from "exploitation" but to protect white workers from competition.

 

Even aside from a racial context, minimum wage laws in countries around the world protect higher-paid workers from the competition of lower paid workers.

 

Often the higher-paid workers are older, more experienced, more skilled or more unionized. But many goods and services can be produced with either many lower skilled workers or fewer higher skilled workers, as well as with more capital and less labor or vice-versa. Employers' choices depend on the relative costs.

 

The net economic effect of minimum wage laws is to make less skilled, less experienced, or otherwise less desired workers more expensive -- thereby pricing many of them out of jobs. Large disparities in unemployment rates between the young and the mature, the skilled and the unskilled, and between different racial groups have been common consequences of minimum wage laws.

 

That is their effect whether the particular minimum wage law applies to one sector of the economy like the Davis-Bacon Act, to the whole economy like the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 or to particular local communities like so-called "living wage" laws and policies today.

 

The full effect of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was postponed by the wartime inflation of the 1940s, which raised wages above the level specified in the Act. Amendments to raise the minimum wage began in 1950 -- and so did the widening racial differential in unemployment, especially for young black men.

 

Where minimum wage rates are higher and accompanied by other worker benefits mandated by government to be paid by employers, as in France, unemployment rates are higher and differences in unemployment rates between the young and the mature, or between different racial or ethnic groups, are greater.

 

France's unemployment rate is roughly double that of the United States and people who are unemployed stay unemployed much longer in France. Unemployment rates among young Frenchmen are about 20 percent and among young Muslim men about 40 percent.

 

There is no free lunch, least of all for the disadvantaged.

 

 

Right CEOs should earn 500:1 what their employees earn. They should drive cadilacs while the employees take the bus to work.

They should earn whatever the market deems their labor is worth. Period. The only people that should be concerned about their pay are the CEO's themselves and the people paying them. It should be no one else's damn business.

 

Let's bring back slave labor yay !!!!!!!! It works so well in communist-China.

Who is advocating slave labor? Do you not even know the definition of the word "slavery"?

 

Let's get rid fo OSHA too, safety who needs it.

I totally agree. OSHA should be totally abolished. If you think we really need an agency like OSHA, then how do you explain the fact that safety was already improving long before OSHA was created, and the rate of improvement did not change one bit afterwards?

 

osha.png

 

Read about the history of labor in this country and try to understand why we have OSHA, the Department of labor and the better business beaureu.

How about you tell us why you think they are needed, based upon the brainwashing you have absorbed over the years like a good little sheep. We could all use a good laugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you get down to real facts, such a small percentage that actually work for minimum wage makes it inconsequential.

 

It is just another liberal feel good kumbaya pile of diverting BS away from what really ails the economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opponents of the federal minimum wage, (FMW) believe the federal minimum wage rate is a primary or particular driver of the U.S. dollar’s inflation; that falsehood is one of their rationalizations to support their predisposition to oppose the FMW rate.

 

Respectfully, Supposn

This is what is know in debate as building a strawman.

It's what is done when the truth is unpalatable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what the fast-food chain operators always tell us, anyways.

It is historical fact. Looking back to the increases in minimum wage shows that when it rises the rest of the wages increase as well. That makes the cost of things increase and we are back were we started with the inflation kicking in. When I was a young child my father would get gas for 25 cents a gallon. A bottle of Coke was 5 cents. My first job was at $1.55 an hour. What is the minimum wage now and what is the cost of these items now???? So explain to me how raising the minimum wage will not create inflation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...