Metal Sludge Gossip Board

So, raising the minimum wage to $10.10 is a good thing? What about the people that will be bounced out of a job and entered into the Jobless category?

Oh, my bad, it is a numbers game. The long term unemployed are not factored in to the reported unemployment rates.



http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... nimum-wage

The Congressional Budget Office is nonpartisan and stacked with well-trained economists, so when it says that a $10.10 federal minimum wage could cost about half a million jobs—as it did today—the conclusion deserves to be taken seriously

BlackCrypt wrote:

The Congressional Budget Office is nonpartisan and stacked with well-trained economists, so when it says that a $10.10 federal minimum wage could cost about half a million jobs—as it did today—the conclusion deserves to be taken seriously

You should have read the CBO report before parroting this crap.

The CBO report said 16.5 million people who are now getting paid less than 10.10/hour would see higher wages. 500,000 of those getting paid less than 10.10/hour would get laid off.

So if you are making less than 10.10/hour, there is a 97% chance you will get a pay hike and a 3% change you will get laid off (.5/17=1.03)

500,000 jobs is .3% of total employment (.5/170=1.003, projected employment level in 2016 is 170 million). The employment to population ratio would be reduced by .3% lower (today that would mean going from 58.8 to 58.62%)

Pretty sure everyone who is making less than $10.10/hour would support a higher minimum wage since there is only a 3% chance they will be worse off. In other words, the report is favorable to a higher minimum wage.

So go ahead and take it seriously.

The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995

Many more low-wage workers would see an increase in their earnings. Of those workers who will earn up to $10.10 under current law, most—about 16.5 million, according to CBO’s estimates—would have higher earnings during an average week in the second half of 2016 if the $10.10 option was implemented.

Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent

BlackCrypt wrote:So, it is ok for those 500,000 people to be jobless to benefit the greater masses?

Danzig in the Dark wrote:

BlackCrypt wrote:So, it is ok for those 500,000 people to be jobless to benefit the greater masses?

unless it's the sequel.

They've already got one person doing the work of two or three. So the problem is less money in the CEO's back pocket?

Oh, the horror!

brotherplanet wrote:They've already got one person doing the work of two or three.

Huh? The average work week was 34.4 hours in Jan 2014. Same as it was in 2006 - 2007

AVERAGE WEEKLY HOURS OF ALL EMPLOYEES
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000002

DEATH ROW JOE wrote:

brotherplanet wrote:They've already got one person doing the work of two or three.

Huh? The average work week was 34.4 hours in Jan 2014. Same as it was in 2006 - 2007

AVERAGE WEEKLY HOURS OF ALL EMPLOYEES
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000002

You don't have a job, do you?

brotherplanet wrote: You don't have a job, do you?

Since you're a dumb ass who feels exploited by your employer, I must be unemployed. It's always interesting how a child's mind works.

Here's labor productivity for the last 45 years. Go ahead and show us where one person started to do the work of 2, let alone 3.

Damn that 4.7 percent making a half a million workers lose their jobs.

I wonder if the sudden bump in pay will bounce them out of some of the subsidies.

People at or below the federal minimum are:

Disproportionately young: 50.6% are ages 16 to 24; 24% are teenagers (ages 16 to 19).
Mostly (78%) white; fully half are white women.
Largely part-time workers (64% of the total).

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... imum-wage/



http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2013/ted_20130325.htm