Minimum wage’s affect upon median wage.
An eliminated federal minimum wage, (FMW) is naturally replaced by an indefinite market determined minimum rate without a “bottom”.
Regardless of whatever serves as the minimum “bench mark” rate, it more or less affects ALL wage and salary rates in a similar manner. (The affect upon a job’s rate is the inverse of the difference between the job and the minimum effective rate)
(I.e. although all wages are affected, lesser earners are proportionately more affected by whatever serves as the effective minimum rate).
The FMW’s purpose is to provide a “bottom” for the lowest income earners and by so doing, to some extent supports all wages and salaries.
The only purpose for eliminating the FMW is to legally permit offering or paying less than the FMW and thus reducing the purchasing power of the median wage. This in turn creates additional jobs that may be performed by those incapable of earning the FMW rate.
Those incapable people are now supported by public assistance or they are dependents of taxpayers.
There are some that contend the FMW is inflationary. The FMW is much more a victim rather than a cause of inflation. The FMW has never, (and whatever serves as the effective minimum rate will never) be among primary causes for dollars’ reductions of purchasing power].
The purchasing powers of the overwhelming majority of additional jobs created due to elimination of the FMW will be extremely less than that of the replaced FMW.
Due to elimination of the FMW, additional jobs with purchsasing powers extremely less than the FMW will be created. The overwhelming majority of those additional extremely sub-minimum wage jobs will be performed by those incapable of work that justify paying the eliminated FMW rate. These people are now supported by public assistance or are taxpayers’ dependents.
FMW opponents argue employing the previously unemployable economically justifies the elimination of the FMW; proponents argue eliminating the FMW to enable employment of the least capable is economically net detrimental.
Employing the least capable would not significantly increase individual enterprises’ or our nation’s production.
Due to the effective minimum bench mark rate more or less affecting ALL wages and salaries, eliminating the FMW would reduce the median wage’s purchasing power far beyond that attributable only to the additional extremely lesser purchasing powered jobs. Those now employed and earning the lowest quarter of wage rates will suffer the greatest losses of purchasing powers.
Due to the elimination of the FMW, ALL working poor not dependent upon other taxpayers would require full public assistance.
Justifying elimination of the FMW because the cost of living would be reduced is absolute nonsense. In the absence of labor shortages, the loss of wages’ and salaries, (i.e. the median wages’) purchasing powers would exceed the extent the cost of living reductions.
Failure to keep the FMW abreast to the U.S. dollar’s purchasing power is an effective method to promote our poverty. That’s why I’m a proponent of annually updating the FMW.
Respectfully, Supposn
An eliminated federal minimum wage, (FMW) is naturally replaced by an indefinite market determined minimum rate without a “bottom”.
Regardless of whatever serves as the minimum “bench mark” rate, it more or less affects ALL wage and salary rates in a similar manner. (The affect upon a job’s rate is the inverse of the difference between the job and the minimum effective rate)
(I.e. although all wages are affected, lesser earners are proportionately more affected by whatever serves as the effective minimum rate).
The FMW’s purpose is to provide a “bottom” for the lowest income earners and by so doing, to some extent supports all wages and salaries.
The only purpose for eliminating the FMW is to legally permit offering or paying less than the FMW and thus reducing the purchasing power of the median wage. This in turn creates additional jobs that may be performed by those incapable of earning the FMW rate.
Those incapable people are now supported by public assistance or they are dependents of taxpayers.
There are some that contend the FMW is inflationary. The FMW is much more a victim rather than a cause of inflation. The FMW has never, (and whatever serves as the effective minimum rate will never) be among primary causes for dollars’ reductions of purchasing power].
The purchasing powers of the overwhelming majority of additional jobs created due to elimination of the FMW will be extremely less than that of the replaced FMW.
Due to elimination of the FMW, additional jobs with purchsasing powers extremely less than the FMW will be created. The overwhelming majority of those additional extremely sub-minimum wage jobs will be performed by those incapable of work that justify paying the eliminated FMW rate. These people are now supported by public assistance or are taxpayers’ dependents.
FMW opponents argue employing the previously unemployable economically justifies the elimination of the FMW; proponents argue eliminating the FMW to enable employment of the least capable is economically net detrimental.
Employing the least capable would not significantly increase individual enterprises’ or our nation’s production.
Due to the effective minimum bench mark rate more or less affecting ALL wages and salaries, eliminating the FMW would reduce the median wage’s purchasing power far beyond that attributable only to the additional extremely lesser purchasing powered jobs. Those now employed and earning the lowest quarter of wage rates will suffer the greatest losses of purchasing powers.
Due to the elimination of the FMW, ALL working poor not dependent upon other taxpayers would require full public assistance.
Justifying elimination of the FMW because the cost of living would be reduced is absolute nonsense. In the absence of labor shortages, the loss of wages’ and salaries, (i.e. the median wages’) purchasing powers would exceed the extent the cost of living reductions.
Failure to keep the FMW abreast to the U.S. dollar’s purchasing power is an effective method to promote our poverty. That’s why I’m a proponent of annually updating the FMW.
Respectfully, Supposn
Last edited:
The marginal product would stay the same and those jobs could still be justified. Maybe an increase in supply in some areas might put some downward pressure, but that only means a net increase in jobs as marginal products remain constant.