Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (9745)	2/6/2017 6:36:50 PM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Recommended By bentway Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 358632

>> This cracked me up. And folks thought Obama colored outside the lines... Trump Administration May Use Executive Authority To Tweak Obamacare’s Rules Insurers would be happy. Consumer advocates, not so much. 02/06/2017 09:47 am ET Jonathan Cohn Senior National Correspondent, The Huffington Post ...HHS has already submitted a proposal of new rules to OMB. And while officials have not said publicly what’s in that proposal, industry consultants and lobbyists told The Huffington Post that HHS has been considering the following three changes, among others: 1. Insurers would have more leeway to vary prices by age, so that premiums for the oldest customers could be 3.49 times as large as those for younger customers. Today, premiums for the old can be only three times as high as premiums for the young, which is what the Affordable Care Act stipulates. According to sources privy to HHS discussions with insurers, officials would argue that since 3.49 “rounds down” to three, the change would still comply with the statute.... Hat Tip Incidental Economist

To: Lane3 who wrote (9745)	2/6/2017 6:39:38 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 358632

California might be able to handle it, but it's gonna take us a few years to get there. On April 4, 2016, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill (“SB”) 3, which increases California’s minimum wage each year so that it will reach $15 per hour in 2022 (unless the increases are temporarily delayed at any point due to certain economic conditions). Currently, California’s minimum wage is $10/hour. The new law will increase this amount as follows for employers who employ 26 or more employees: On January 1, 2017, the minimum wage will increase to $10.50 per hour. On January 1, 2018, the minimum wage will increase to $11 per hour. On January 1, 2019, the minimum wage will increase to $12 per hour. On January 1, 2020, the minimum wage will increase to $13 per hour. On January 1, 2021, the minimum wage will increase to $14 per hour. On January 1, 2022, the minimum wage will increase to $15 per hour. There is a delay in implementations for small businesses. Specifically, the above schedule is delayed at each step by one year for employers with 25 or fewer employees. Commentators have observed that under the schedule set by SB 3, California will soon have the highest minimum wage in the country. calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (9745)	2/6/2017 8:27:57 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 358632

San Francisco is another with similar results. I just picked two that I knew had a minimum wage significantly above the federal one. i-node and I have been doing this for a while. For him, wages are totally inelastic. Any increase, however small, triggers a number of bad economic things that, say the price of tomatoes during a drought does not. Now certainly if the rise in prices is too much, for labor or tomatoes, then you can see an effect. And he is right, economic conventional wisdom was with his side. In the 1970s. Turns out, when you control for demographics and other issues, small increases have little or no effect on the unemployment rate. Boosting the minimum wage in, say Mississippi to $15 in one fell swoop might increase unemployment. But increases in minimum wage tends to be done in steps over several years. However, even a relatively large increase in a short period of time can have minimal effect. For example, Kansas. Until 2010, their minimum wage was $2.65 and jumped to $7.25. And their economy was fine afterwards. Now it very well could be that few people were paying much below the federal minimum wage, but I haven't been able to find any figures on that. Of course, Kansas is a basket case right now, but that has little to do with the minimum wage and everything to do with implementing the economic policies(Laffer is an adviser to Brownback) that i-node advocates. But that is a different argument...