CBO: Minimum wage hike to $10.10 would kill 500,000 jobs and would primarily help wealthier workers

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 18, 2014 10:24 PM GMT
    As quoted from Greg Mankiw:
    http://gregmankiw.blogspot.ca/2014/02/cbo-on-proposed-minimum-wage-hike.html

    Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers....The increased earnings for low-wage workers resulting from the higher minimum wage would total $31 billion, by CBO’s estimate. However, those earnings would not go only to low-income families, because many low-wage workers are not members of low-income families. Just 19 percent of the $31 billion would accrue to families with earnings below the poverty threshold, whereas 29 percent would accrue to families earning more than three times the poverty threshold.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2014 12:52 AM GMT
    Surprise:

    White House rushes to attack CBO report on minimum wage increase
    http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/18/white-house-rushes-to-attack-cbo-report-on-minimum-wages/

    Democrats rushed to damn the Congressional Budget Office’s Tuesday report on raising the minimum wage, which predicts income gains for tens of millions of low-skill workers, but also job losses for roughly 500,000 people.

    The minimum wage is a top priority issue for Democrats, who are looking for ways to increase November turnout by low-income voters, including many African-Americans and Hispanics.
  • carew28

    Posts: 660

    Feb 19, 2014 8:41 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidAs quoted from Greg Mankiw:
    http://gregmankiw.blogspot.ca/2014/02/cbo-on-proposed-minimum-wage-hike.html

    Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers....The increased earnings for low-wage workers resulting from the higher minimum wage would total $31 billion, by CBO’s estimate. However, those earnings would not go only to low-income families, because many low-wage workers are not members of low-income families. Just 19 percent of the $31 billion would accrue to families with earnings below the poverty threshold, whereas 29 percent would accrue to families earning more than three times the poverty threshold.


    If 19 % of the benefit of a minimum-wage increase goes to families below the poverty threshold, and 29 % accrues to more affluent families, there is still 52 % that will accrue to families at or only a small distance above, the poverty threshold. The poverty threshold, I think, is actually very, very low. So the bulk of the minimum-wage increase (71%) would accrue to working-class families who really need it. I imagine that the remaining 29% would go to teenagers from more affluent families. However, considering how low the poverty threshold is, if the household income of these families is 3 times the poverty threshold, they probably are middleclass, they very likely aren't wealthy. All in all, it would seem to be a good thing for the economy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2014 8:50 PM GMT

    Hmmm...I wonder why that didn't happen up here in Canada?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2014 9:10 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    Hmmm...I wonder why that didn't happen up here in Canada?

    You mean where Riddler allegedly lives? As well as in China? But he knows our US economy, politics & society better than we US citizens do? That he can lecture us all the time on them, and on little else?
  • PIccadilly

    Posts: 240

    Feb 19, 2014 10:40 PM GMT
    YourName2000 saidAgain, trusting Riddler to give objective information is like trusting a cigarette company to have your best-health concerns in mind. *Everything* he says is misleading.


    I figured as much since he referenced a blog instead of the report itself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2014 12:59 AM GMT
    Piccadilly said
    YourName2000 saidAgain, trusting Riddler to give objective information is like trusting a cigarette company to have your best-health concerns in mind. *Everything* he says is misleading.


    I figured as much since he referenced a blog instead of the report itself.


    The writer of said blog is author of most of the basic economics texts being used through the US and Canada. But then again, the only one being dishonest here is actually Yourname2000.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2014 1:00 AM GMT
    meninlove said
    Hmmm...I wonder why that didn't happen up here in Canada?



    Based on previous studies, it depends on the size of the jump and it also depends on where the economy is. In the case of Canada, the economy was doing much better than the US is doing today - so the market minimum wage was a lot higher than legislated minimum wage.

    eg. Good luck hiring someone for minimum wage in Alberta.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2014 1:02 AM GMT
    YourName2000 saidGuys, you actually have to *read* the articles Riddler references (as far off to the right as they may be). The idiot never gives you the straight goods; it's always misleading.

    Don't accept the premise of a Riddler thread any more than you trust a used car salesmen to sell you a "good car"....in both cases, what each party deems as "good" is wildly different.

    For example, from the title "...and would primarily help wealthier workers" is an outright lie:

    http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995For family income overall and for various income groups, CBO estimates the following:

    Once the increases and decreases in income for all workers are taken into account, overall real income would rise by $1 billion.

    Real income would increase, on net, by about $1 billion for families whose income will be below the poverty threshold under current law, boosting their average family income by about 1 percent and moving about 300,000 people, on net, above the poverty threshold.

    Families whose income would have been between one and three times the poverty threshold would receive, on net, $3 billion in additional real income. About $1 billion, on net, would go to families whose income would have been between three and six times the poverty threshold.

    Real income would decrease, on net, by $4 billion for families whose income would otherwise have been six times the poverty threshold or more, lowering their average family income by about 0.1 percent.


    The wealthiest workers *do not* benefit more from a $10.10 min wage...the poor and middle class do...it's just a Riddler lie.

    Also left out, the CBO is *not* just considering a $10.10 minimum wage, but also just a $9.00 minimum wage.

    Again, trusting Riddler to give objective information is like trusting a cigarette company to have your best-health concerns in mind. *Everything* he says is misleading.


    Sorry, I can't be held accountable to your unwillingness/inability to read. I've repeatedly called you out on the numerous straw men you create in order to argue against what aren't ever even my arguments. Your inability to actually argue anything on their actual merits does a disservice to your views - but my guess is that facts don't actually matter to you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2014 7:50 AM GMT
    Gregory Mankiw is not a respectable economist, he is a shill for the Republicans. He was a member of the Bush administration and was known by other economists to cherry-pick his factoids to suit the party line du jour.

    Next.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2014 1:46 PM GMT
    Sharkira saidGregory Mankiw is not a respectable economist, he is a shill for the Republicans. He was a member of the Bush administration and was known by other economists to cherry-pick his factoids to suit the party line du jour.

    Next.


    He's one of the most cited economists academically. So when you make the claim he's not a respectable economist - most of the economics profession would not only disagree with you - the economists you have respect for would disagree with you because many of them have cited one or more of his papers for their own.

    But, as you have proven time and time again, you're nothing but an old bitter buffoon who has a really flexible relationship with reality. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2014 3:13 PM GMT
    some will enjoy their pay increase form $7 to $10.10 an hour.

    some will not enjoy their pay decrease from $7 an hour to 0.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2014 3:22 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Sharkira saidGregory Mankiw is not a respectable economist, he is a shill for the Republicans. He was a member of the Bush administration and was known by other economists to cherry-pick his factoids to suit the party line du jour.

    Next.


    He's one of the most cited economists academically. So when you make the claim he's not a respectable economist - most of the economics profession would not only disagree with you - the economists you have respect for would disagree with you because many of them have cited one or more of his papers for their own.

    But, as you have proven time and time again, you're nothing but an old bitter buffoon who has a really flexible relationship with reality. icon_wink.gif

    Krugman has written extensively about Mankiw, who was considered respectable in the pre-Bush era but who has since descended into disreputable shilling and hackery.
    Not surprising you don't know this, because you don't know, well, pretty much anything. But you should make a least a tiny effort to stay current. Things aren't the same as when you first stroked your tiny penis while reading von Mises.
  • mybud

    Posts: 11836

    Feb 20, 2014 3:37 PM GMT
    This is the biggest crock of shit you've ever posted.....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2014 4:11 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    Hmmm...I wonder why that didn't happen up here in Canada?



    I know right, as if the U.S were the first country on earth with such minimum wage value. They pull such stats out of their asses sometimes. No matter what good is done they will always come up with nonsense to turn good news into bad news.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Feb 20, 2014 4:30 PM GMT
    I can see why this would upset Riddler. He'll just have to go kill some kittens or push children into traffic, or something, until he feels better.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2014 4:33 PM GMT
    Good luck trying to point out the unintended consequences of well intentioned policies. All anyone's interested in these days is feeling good about themselves.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Feb 20, 2014 4:48 PM GMT
    Blakes7 saidGood luck trying to point out the unintended consequences of well intentioned policies. All anyone's interested in these days is feeling good about themselves.

    Yeah, life is a lot easier for sociopaths with no conscience. I'm guessing the GOP would prefer to cut the minimum wage and food assistance programs altogether. Getting rich on the backs of cheap labor must be how they feel good about themselves.

    Speaking of unintended consequences, I was just reading about how the US is tightening it's EPA regulations while exporting the dirtiest fossil fuels to China, and the whole world will suffer the consequences, rich and poor alike, in our lifetimes. icon_sad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2014 4:52 PM GMT
    Boy, you're in a mood
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2014 5:33 PM GMT
    Seriously, though, thank you for proving my point. That makes you even hotter!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2014 8:10 PM GMT
    Sharkira said
    riddler78 said
    Sharkira saidGregory Mankiw is not a respectable economist, he is a shill for the Republicans. He was a member of the Bush administration and was known by other economists to cherry-pick his factoids to suit the party line du jour.

    Next.


    He's one of the most cited economists academically. So when you make the claim he's not a respectable economist - most of the economics profession would not only disagree with you - the economists you have respect for would disagree with you because many of them have cited one or more of his papers for their own.

    But, as you have proven time and time again, you're nothing but an old bitter buffoon who has a really flexible relationship with reality. icon_wink.gif

    Krugman has written extensively about Mankiw, who was considered respectable in the pre-Bush era but who has since descended into disreputable shilling and hackery.
    Not surprising you don't know this, because you don't know, well, pretty much anything. But you should make a least a tiny effort to stay current. Things aren't the same as when you first stroked your tiny penis while reading von Mises.


    Yep, I'd suggest even Krugman, a former advisor to Enron, has considerable respect for Mankiw despite his petulant rantings from time to time. That said, the fact that you cling to that loon says (a bit) more about you though - particularly given the NYT's own ombudsman's words on the man.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2014 8:12 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    Blakes7 saidGood luck trying to point out the unintended consequences of well intentioned policies. All anyone's interested in these days is feeling good about themselves.

    Yeah, life is a lot easier for sociopaths with no conscience. I'm guessing the GOP would prefer to cut the minimum wage and food assistance programs altogether. Getting rich on the backs of cheap labor must be how they feel good about themselves.

    Speaking of unintended consequences, I was just reading about how the US is tightening it's EPA regulations while exporting the dirtiest fossil fuels to China, and the whole world will suffer the consequences, rich and poor alike, in our lifetimes. icon_sad.gif


    That's because those like you think that things like laws in economics can be repealed through regulation and legislation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2014 10:24 PM GMT
    He's not thinking at all, he's feeling.