CBO: $10.10 Minimum Wage Will Cost 500,000 Jobs, Increase Deficit

[angelatc]

But would you pay her more than minimum wage? SHe deserve a raise....

 

[Brian4Liberty]

usually. Step into an airplane without a human pilot. Good luck.

Unfortunately, it happened recently in San Francisco... Capt. Sum Ting Wong might as well have been in the bathroom.

 

[Danke]

Unfortunately, it happened recently in San Francisco... Capt. Sum Ting Wong might as well have been in the bathroom.

Anther subject to my tirade. I was stationed in South Korea and flew in Asia.


Good luck. They suck.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101352849

Remember this douch-bag?

 

[qh4dotcom]

Can someone give me their take on this.

Obama and his cronies got billions in campaign contributions the last two elections....millions came from employers.

If employers got millions to waste to send to Washington, they can afford a $10.10 wage....every extra dollar in increased wages they pay to their employees is a dollar that won't be going to Washington (employee taxes excluded of course).

 

[eduardo89]

But would you pay her more than minimum wage? SHe deserve a raise....

I don't think it'd her wage that'd be going up if Danke employed her...

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Can someone give me their take on this.

Obama and his cronies got billions in campaign contributions the last two elections....millions came from employers.

If employers got millions to waste to send to Washington, they can afford a $10.10 wage....every extra dollar in increased wages they pay to their employees is a dollar that won't be going to Washington (employee taxes excluded of course).

You can pretty much guarantee that money that cronies spend on politicians is pennies on the dollar to how much they benefit. That's more an observation on how cheap it is to buy a politician, as opposed to saying that crony corporatists always make sound business decisions.

 

[angelatc]

Can someone give me their take on this.

Obama and his cronies got billions in campaign contributions the last two elections....millions came from employers.

If employers got millions to waste to send to Washington, they can afford a $10.10 wage....every extra dollar in increased wages they pay to their employees is a dollar that won't be going to Washington (employee taxes excluded of course).

Its not just the big companies though. There are thousands of small and mid sized companies that don't get involved in politics, and they're the people who can't afford the higher wage. And it isn't just the wage increase - all the employer taxes that are tied to wages go up too.

 

[brandon]

Would probably be good for my industry. Lots of new jobs building the computers and robots that will replace the minimum wage workers.

 

[oyarde]

And don't forget, you can save a few dollars on a non union carrier where the pilots will be fired for refusing an aircraft that he is unconformable with taking.

I really laugh at the flying public. Ignorance is bliss. They complain about the stupidest things. You want to get from A to B in one piece?

Yes , Yes I do . I have been through too much to be done in by an aircraft that 1) I did not have to jump out of 2) Is not on fire from unfriendly fire 3) does not have all of the bullet/shrapnel holes covered with made in the US duct tape , preferably by a non union Grandmother , who not only knows what she is doing , but actually cares about the quality as well.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Would probably be good for my industry. Lots of new jobs building the computers and robots that will replace the minimum wage workers.

 

[oyarde]

Interesting figure- given that the estimated people who would receive the increase of about $2 an hour was only about 200,000.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...e-for-federal-contractors-heres-how-it-works/



That would require every federal contractor making under $12 an hour losing their job. Seems quite high to make that claim.

What Fed workers other than Army or Corp Privates etc make less than $12 an hour ???

 

[2young2vote]

Yes, those who will keep their job will be receiving more dollars. I don't think anyone is going to argue that. The problem is that those dollars will continue to be worth less and less over time and in 5 years we will be right back where we are today. People making $10.10 will be complaining that it isn't enough and they need to earn more. This is the typical government solution - instead of addressing and fixing the problem they just throw money at it.

Healthcare reform is the perfect example - they say "oh, you can't afford healthcare? Here is some money so you can pay for it," instead of saying "Oh, you can't afford healthcare? Lets try to see why it costs so much and try to reduce the cost in the first place."

And here we have a cost of living that is too high, so instead of trying to determine why the cost of living is so high and fixing it, they choose to "give" people more money.

 

[Lucille]

Clearly racist, twomp.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/19/am-links-white-house-disputes-economic-r

The chairman of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers disputed the CBO’s estimate that a higher minimum wage would cause job loss, because, what, you expected him to be economically literate?

http://reason.com/24-7/2014/02/18/white-house-calls-cbo-minimum-wage-repor

“CBO’s estimates of the impact of raising the minimum wage on employment does not reflect the current consensus view of economists,” he said in a blog post. “The bulk of academic studies, have concluded that the effects on employment of minimum wage increases in the range now under consideration are likely to be small to nonexistent."

 

[angelatc]

Clearly racist, twomp.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/19/am-links-white-house-disputes-economic-r



http://reason.com/24-7/2014/02/18/white-house-calls-cbo-minimum-wage-repor

Take the Nixonian approach: Abolish the CBO!

 

[Zippyjuan]

The article is talking about raising the federal minimum wage for ALL workers.

Then that would still mean one of three jobs currently paying the Federal Minimum Wage would disappear in less than two years. Again- sounds too large a figure.
(In 2012, 1.6 million received the Federal Minimum wage) http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm

In 2012, 75.3 million workers in the United States age 16 and over were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.0 percent of all wage and salary workers. 1 Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

 

[eduardo89]

Then that would still mean one of three jobs currently paying the Federal Minimum Wage would disappear in less than two years. Again- sounds too large a figure.
(In 2012, 1.6 million received the Federal Minimum wage) http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm

"Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour."

And how many earn between $7.25 and $10? How many of those jobs become unprofitable at $10.10?

 

[Lucille]

Take the Nixonian approach: Abolish the CBO!

LOL Except, this hack pointed out the trouble with that:

The administration is engaging in a bit of awkward cherry-picking, touting some numbers in the report while throwing cold water on others. Essentially, it's saying CBO analysts are spot on when they produce favorable results, but terrible at their jobs when they do the opposite. The selective embrace of data is a hallmark of deliberately self-serving arguments.

Democrats have long relied on the CBO to bolster their arguments on issues ranging from health care to the economy. The CBO, as a group of nonpartisan number-crunchers, is usually part of the wonky apparatus that lends credence to the Democrats' claim that reality has a liberal bias. And now the White House is saying the CBO is unreliable. So which is it?

 

[TheGrinch]

"Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour."

And how many earn between $7.25 and $10? How many of those jobs become unprofitable at $10.10?

If you read the CBO report, it also talks about how higher wage earners' jobs could also/instead be eliminated, for several reasons: 1) If you raise ages for minimum wage workers, then those who were previously making more than them will in many cases continue to demand higher wages than the minimum. Even if they do not demand more, they still my be subject to having their job eliminated, as many companies will have to cut costs (if they are not able to completely offset losses by passing costs on to the customer), and it could be any employee whose position goes on the chopping block. Even though that tends to be the low-skilled/low paid who are more easily priced out of the market and replaced by more productive workers/technology, it depends on the company their best course of eliminating costs.

Thus the rise in unemployment may well include higher wage earners, but it will be disproportionately the underskilled poor (you know, the people they claim to be helping) who will be more likely to price themselves out of employment. And unlike the higher wage earners, they will have far more problems finding another job without skills/experience/credibility for tht employer to take the costly chance on them over better alternatives.

 

[TheGrinch]

Bump.

Zippy, why is it that you come into threads and make bold claims only to ignore them when challenged?

I would be greatly interested to see if this changes your opinion, or if it is just more proof that you only exist here to be a contrarian and cast doubt where it sticks.

Well, I don't need you to respond to see that, but hey, I have a thing for troll psychology.