It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GOP rep.: Keep minimum wage low ‘for minorities’ who aren’t worth more than $7 an hour

page: 12
32
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:10 AM
link   
There is no job that should pay a wage too low for a person to make a living from.
You cant state a job is so unskilled it only deserves a tiny pay amount.
If a job is labour intensive, then it doesnt matter if it is unskilled you are asking somebody to still put in a hour of their time in intensive labour. that deserves to be rewarded wth a living wage.




posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:10 AM
link   
There is no job that should pay a wage too low for a person to make a living from.
You cant state a job is so unskilled it only deserves a tiny pay amount.
If a job is labour intensive, then it doesnt matter if it is unskilled you are asking somebody to still put in a hour of their time in intensive labour. that deserves to be rewarded wth a living wage.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:33 AM
link   
All this blah blah blah!!!

Seriously, 12 pages of arguing over what?

Current minimum wage: $7.25

$7.25 an hour is $15,080 a year BEFORE taxes.

According to this years tax table you'll pay: Single - $1,808, Married filing jointly (no kids) - $1,508

After taxes you'll net: Single - $13,272, Married filing jointly (no kids) - $13,572

Proposed minimum wage: $10

$10 an hour is $20,800 a year BEFORE taxes

According to this years tax table you'll pay: Single - $2,670, Married filing jointly (no kids) - $2,216

After taxes you'll net: Single - $18,130, Married filing jointly (no kids) - $18,584

So all this bickering for what? $5k a year? These numbers don't even include the now mandatory health insurance costs you'll face, or social security taxes, or medicare/medicaid taxes.

$7.25 an hour, or $10 an hour it doesn't matter. Neither pays anything even remotely close to what most would say is a livable wage. No one is coming off welfare with this wage increase, its ridiculous to even think so.

tax tables



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: UMayBRite!
I can understand a business being opposed to higher minimum wages. Its narrow self interest, though.


You say that like it's a bad thing. A business exists to make profit for the owner. Profitable businesses grow, increasing employment opportunities.


originally posted by: UMayBRite!
The facts are that minimum wage is well below the poverty level. The governnment subsidizes minimum wage workers with food stamps and earned income tax credits.


Some might say the cart is being put before the horse here. The "poverty level" is as much a reflection of the cost of goods - everything you do to inflate the cost of goods pushes the benchmark for "poverty level" higher. When you artificially increase wages, production costs also rise - or companies cut back on staff and risk reducing the amount of product they can create in the same time period - either way, final product cost rises. You're not saving the poor, you're deliberately pricing them out of the market. Well done, you.


originally posted by: UMayBRite!
So business pays one way or the other. There needs to be an international minimum work standard for businesses. Its wrong for workers anywhere to have to compete with 12 hr per day $.35 per hour wage slaves anywhere. Someday wage will converge and the whole world will have the same standards.
'


No. Social Justice Warriors need to butt out of something they have no real understanding about, and choose some other part of society to screw up with their nonsense. The rest of us just need to be left alone to try and fix the problems caused by that most prevalent of mental diseases - socialism.

Business want, and largely need, good staff, and will pay the most advantageous rate to get them. That rate is a simple matter of supply and demand. If you increase the amount of employment available (ie by taking business-friendly measures) then businesses will start to offer more competitive wages to attract the quality of staff they want. It becomes an "employees' market". The more you do to tie up the businesses, the less employment opportunities arise, so there are more employees than opportunities. It becomes an "employers' market" which, following the best tradition of supply and demand, pushes wages down.

Let go of the reins. Businesses exist to make money, which they cannot do unless there is a market for their goods. Businesses actually have far more interest in a healthy economy with high employment and disposable income in every pocket. Liberals and socialist detest that situation, because you can't control people that no longer rely on you.


edit on 26-1-2015 by EvillerBob because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Mexicans and African Americans aren't the only minorities. The ones working in your hospitals, law firms and research labs or small business owners...most of them are Asian (south asian, Chinese, Korean, middle eastern) To label minorities as mostly unskilled is a pretty racist mindset.
edit on 26-1-2015 by Mehmet666Heineken because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
There is no job that should pay a wage too low for a person to make a living from.
You cant state a job is so unskilled it only deserves a tiny pay amount.
If a job is labour intensive, then it doesnt matter if it is unskilled you are asking somebody to still put in a hour of their time in intensive labour. that deserves to be rewarded wth a living wage.


There absolutely is, unless you want the kid doing the paper round each morning to earn a living wage?

A labour-intensive job would not fall under that category because the employee is still bringing something to the table that other employees might not be able to do. Quantity of labour has a quality all of its own.

The old saying "the world needs ditch-diggers, too" is actually rather unfair. The guy who does it well will help keep your project on-time and on-budget, which is of immense value to a company - moreso than the clerk filing papers in the office with their Masters degree in BasketWeaving And Popular Culture. When you find the guy who can dig his target 12 meters of ditch, day in, day out, whatever the weather, you will pay to keep him.

But... you want the kid doing the paper round every morning to make a living wage doing it? Really?



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:52 AM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

Exactly, and what exactly is a "living wage"? My previous post shows that the change from 7.25 to 10 is negligible, especially after the Fed takes your money, I mean collects taxes.

The first question that EVERYONE needs to answer and come to a consensus on is: What is a living wage?



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: XTexan
a reply to: EvillerBob

Exactly, and what exactly is a "living wage"? My previous post shows that the change from 7.25 to 10 is negligible, especially after the Fed takes your money, I mean collects taxes.

The first question that EVERYONE needs to answer and come to a consensus on is: What is a living wage?



"Living wage" is a made-up expression for "minmum wage" designed to elicit an emotional response. It's like the shift from saying "gun control" to "reasonable restrictions" - which both mean the same thing. You can argue against "minimum wage" but you sound like a douchebag trying to argue against "living wage". It's a typical approach for trying to stifle any debate on the matter.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 05:03 AM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad Your statement is a bit wrong. Walmart salary employees average wage is $9.40 a hour. www.glassdoor.com.... Starting someone on their first job I would expect a lower wage. But the incentive to move to higher wages has to be there. I would think starting someone at say $10.00 a hour does not produce much incentive to move on to higher wages. Then you have a permanent lower wage class at $10.00 a hour.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 05:26 AM
link   
We have an issue in the UK where government basically subsidises buinesses to pay wages below the living wage.
They call it tax credits, i earn well above the UK's minimum wage, yet without tax credits i couldnt afford to live. We then get demonised by the Government and press as scroungers. It's a terrible situation.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

of course for the time that it takes him to deliver the papers why not, it's pretty much the same job as a postman.
if it takes him a hour, then give him the full hours wage.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: XTexan

Yup, and they make it sound like you're do well. Seriously?? 18K a year will barely keep a roof over your head. You will live paycheck to paycheck. You will probably have no car or a broken down one. You will not own your own home, probably no medical, barely bring food to the table. You will have no savings, no emergency funds, no retirement, no ability to go anywhere and enjoy your family. To top all that off your family will probably be torn apart in the process and you will probably divorce your spouse. American dream? More like American nightmare.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

Your argument here relies on CPI inflation numbers. The way inflation is calculated by CPI (which is then factored into the base rate for bank loans) was changed in 1982 in order to put a stop to the rampant inflation of the 70s. We never actually solved the inflation issue we simply started recording it different. Essentially we changed from tracking the price of a good or the time to work to purchase a good from one year to the next and looked instead at total household spending. To give you a practical example of this lets say you buy 3 turkey sandwiches at $2 each. The next year inflation happens and that same $6 now only buys you 2 sandwiches at $3 each. Under the pre 1982 system this would be recorded as an annual inflation rate of 50%. Under the post 1982 system, assuming you only spend that same $6 because that's all you can afford the inflation rate is recorded at 0 because you spend $6 before and $6 after.



I need to say BS, unless you can come up with tangible life examples. I been working and buying everything on my own since 1980 so I kind of know what things cost in the past and what things cost today.

The reason I say BS is because you take something like hamburger in 1938 was 13c per pound. This means you could get about 2 pounds for an hour of minimum wage work. In 2014 two pounds of hamburger was $7, so that is rather linear if not even better off in 2014.

I know houses cost more today, but they are 3 times the size as 1938 and have many things like heating, air conditioning etc that in 1938 was not common. Same with cars...it is hard to compare things that have drastically changed, but beef is beef, chicken is chicken, etc.




We could take my current jobs. Computer programmer and college tutor. Both require bachelors degrees. Both pay minimum wage.


Are you an intern fresh out of college? I pay my neighbor 25 per hour to tutor my 11 year old son...

SOOooo what company pays minimum wage for a computer programmer... I work with about 75 of them and none make less than 30 per hour....



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: missed_gear

Without looking up exacts, I can tell you from experience...$10 would turn to $5 disposable very quick.

And who gets more money?

MG


That is the argument, isn't it. The more minimum is paid the higher cost of living. If we raised minimum to 15 bucks per hour, companies would regulate that back to 33% of a companies gross by raising prices, which means reduced buying power.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: sean
a reply to: XTexan

Yup, and they make it sound like you're do well. Seriously?? 18K a year will barely keep a roof over your head. You will live paycheck to paycheck. You will probably have no car or a broken down one. You will not own your own home, probably no medical, barely bring food to the table. You will have no savings, no emergency funds, no retirement, no ability to go anywhere and enjoy your family. To top all that off your family will probably be torn apart in the process and you will probably divorce your spouse. American dream? More like American nightmare.


I know right... I see all this preaching about a liveable wage, yet the wage they propose is not liveable. Wouldn't even put them above the poverty line. $15 an hour is a somewhat liveable wage ($30k a year), but thats to much. I'm no business owner but if I was mandated to pay $15 an hour I'm bumping everyone I can to part time so I don't have to pay health insurance. But if you have to pay your own health insurance then $15 is no longer a liveable wage.
edit on 26-1-2015 by XTexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 02:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I need to say BS, unless you can come up with tangible life examples. I been working and buying everything on my own since 1980 so I kind of know what things cost in the past and what things cost today.


I wrote a paper on this subject recently, I happened to have some family members with MBAs in economics as well as another professor I know with a PhD in economics read it over. They all said I made fair points about the wage. I'll avoid posting the entire thing and just quote some of the data. Basically, you need to look at more than just the price of goods but also at the wages. You can express every good as time to earn at minimum wage and compare like goods. BLS where I grabbed my statistics doesn't go back to 1938 on everything, instead I went back to 1956 which makes for a good comparison as that was our so called golden age.

Well start with comparisons of the 3 largest expenses in our lives plus the Big Mac due to the Big Mac Index being an economic indicator. The college used is 1 year tuition at UPenn, the average homes are average housing prices. 1 gallon of gas, and the Big Mac. The years were picked because they're the years we had minimum wage increases, so minimum wage purchasing power should be max
Year -- UPenn -- Home -- Gas -- Big Mac
1956 -- 800 ---- 11700 ---- 0.22 -- 0.32
1967 -- 1770 --- 22300 ---- 0.33 -- 0.45
1979 -- 5250 --- 58100 ---- 0.86 -- 1.20
1985 -- 9525 --- 87900 ---- 1.20 -- 1.60
1992 -- 15198 - 124500 --- 1.13 -- 2.19
2003 -- 26282 - 194100 --- 1.72 -- 2.90
2013 -- 40954 - 311400 --- 3.49 -- 4.20

Now lets take those costs and run them through the minimum wage in order to get hours worked to purchase.

Year -- UPenn -- Home ----- Gas -- Big Mac
1956 -- 800.00 -- 11700.00 -- 0.22 -- 0.32
1967 -- 1264.29 - 15928.57 -- 0.24 -- 0.32
1979 -- 2625.00 - 29050.00 -- 0.43 -- 0.60
1985 -- 2877.64 - 36555.89 -- 0.36 -- 0.48
1992 -- 3999.47 - 32763.16 -- 0.30 -- 0.58
2003 -- 5113.23 - 37762.85 -- 0.33 -- 0.56
2013 -- 5648.83 - 42951.72 -- 0.48 -- 0.58

At 40 hours of work per week, with no vacations you work 2080 hours. With 100% of wage earnings going to tuition it would take just shy of 3 years of work in order to afford 1 year of school. That's 12 years of work before you can get a degree, with no other expenses like food and shelter. Throw in future inflation and it jumps to about 16 years. Thats the 20 year degree plan. Is that the way it should be? Shouldnt college students be able to fund their own educations? The economic reality means they cant, and that is why 95% of the students at every college are on some form of financial aid and over 90% of them take loans.

A home would require 21 years of work to purchase. Is that the american dream? Live without food and shelter while working full time for 21 years so that you can finally afford to purchase a home? I dont think so.

You brought up food, the picture for food is actually a bit less bleak. Raising prices in the grocery store recently aside food prices have been going down. Of course the quality of the food is also declining unless you buy the expensive premium stuff. But that's not what is being measured.

Here's some food and the shopping list I used, ATS doesn't like me pasting the table in so Im only going to give totals here.
1 pound Apples
2 pounds Roast
3 pounds Steak
1 pound Bread
1 pound Butter
3 pounds Chicken
1 pound Coffee
12 Eggs
1 gallon Milk
1 pound Rice
1 pound Sugar

Year ---1950 ---- 1960 ---- 1970 ---- 1980 ---- 1990 ---- 2000 ---- 2010
Totals - 9.42 ---- 10.41 --- 12.93 --- 26.64 --- 35.01 --- 42.01 --- 59.90
Wage - 0.75 ----- 1 -------- 1.4------- 2 -------- 3.8 ------ 5.14 ----- 7.25
MinBuy 753.6 --- 624.60 -- 554.14 -- 799.20 --552.79 -- 490.39 -- 495.72

As you can see, aside from the energy scares issues of the late 70s which threw prices out of whack, food has actually gotten less expensive. There's a reason for this though. People are still consuming about the same amounts of food per capita, what has changed is our productivity. We are 2.5x more productive today than we were in 1987 (the first year the statistics were kept for) and far more productive than we were in 1950. All of that extra productivity means that the supply of food has gone way up while demand stays fairly level. So if supply has gone up by atleast 200%, why has the cost only gone down from that time period by 11.5%? The answer to this question is that wages haven't kept up with the other gains in the economy.

Before doing the research I did for this paper I believed workers had a reasonable claim at $15, and that good things could be done at a compromise to $12 or so. After doing the research the only conclusion I could come to is that minimum wage (and therefore the rates EVERYONE should be paid, as it all rests on the minimum) are extremely low after counting for inflation and the cost of goods. The minimum wage right now should be over $30/hour. Of course, no business could actually afford to pay that which brings us to the next solution. It has taken 30 years to get to this point, and it would take 30 to fix, this gives companies time to adjust and make changes as wages go up. In order to get wages to where they should be it would take roughly an 8.3% pay increase year after year for the next 30 years to get things back in line. That of course means the cost of goods goes up, but we've been hiding the cost of inflation that's already there anyways. This just makes it public. Doing such a thing would shrink income inequality back to a reasonable level. And allow everyone to earn what they should. It would also put far more of society back onto the side of being consumers which is what our entire economy is based on.


Are you an intern fresh out of college? I pay my neighbor 25 per hour to tutor my 11 year old son...

SOOooo what company pays minimum wage for a computer programmer... I work with about 75 of them and none make less than 30 per hour....


Not an intern, graduated college a couple years back (3 associates and a bachelors) and found the economy had plans that didnt involve me getting a job. Went back to school to pick up a second bachelors degree so I can start my own business when Im done with it, Im 2/4 years into it now. So currently Im a student. I do some programming for the local companies, it's pretty standard to get minimum wage I honestly feel lucky when I can even get that many times it's less. Labor is worth what it's worth, but when you need to make rent money it suddenly becomes worth a whole lot less that's just the way the world works.

As far as tutoring goes, have you ever tutored college students? They have no money to pay for tutoring, which means they go through the free tutoring in the school (which is what I do). Those are paid through state/federal grants. They pay roughly 80% of minimum wage even though they require high gpa's, having taken the class, and a degree in the field before they'll hire you.
edit on 27-1-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   
It was late last night and I had to cut my reply short, I wanted to address a couple other points too.


originally posted by: Xtrozero
I know houses cost more today, but they are 3 times the size as 1938 and have many things like heating, air conditioning etc that in 1938 was not common. Same with cars...it is hard to compare things that have drastically changed, but beef is beef, chicken is chicken, etc.


Some houses are 3x the size but many houses are just as small it all depends on your area. In my area few new homes are built, most homes are atleast 50 years old. The previous house I lived in which was converted to apartments was closing in on 210 years old. The house I currently live in is 100 years old and it's a pretty good sized place. Yes homes today have extras like heating, air conditioning, and so on but that doesn't actually raise the price of the product because these things are added to make the product competitive and the technology to build fancier things improves over time. Lets take computers which are something I know a bit about. Since the creation of the integrated circuit the price of computers has fallen and fallen even though they get more complex.

We can take software as well, which I also know something about as it's my field (particularly game design). 30 years ago I could write Pong which is a fairly simple game and sell it for lets say $30. Today it's extremely unlikely I could ever sell Pong even though the product is exactly the same as 30 years ago. Things have become more complex and as such consumer expectations have risen. I would need to create better sound/graphics, a more complex series of gameplay, unlockable bonuses, some social media integration, and so on.

This effect isn't a bad thing either, it means we get better products in the marketplace. But what it does mean is that the addition of things like a furnace and central air don't meaningfully impact the price once they become ubiquitous.


Are you an intern fresh out of college? I pay my neighbor 25 per hour to tutor my 11 year old son...

SOOooo what company pays minimum wage for a computer programmer... I work with about 75 of them and none make less than 30 per hour....


Things aren't that pleasant in every area of the country. The median wage in my town is $13,000/year. That's not even full time at minimum wage. Welcome to small town life, jobs pay what they're worth to people and jobs like database programming, web development, application programming, and so on just aren't worth very much here.
edit on 27-1-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
That's 12 years of work before you can get a degree, with no other expenses like food and shelter. Throw in future inflation and it jumps to about 16 years.


Yep you picked a few things, and those things are not really affected by inflation. College cost at a top school is crazy, not sure how many other colleges cost in comparison, but college cost has nothing to do with inflation. Gas, fast foods are also is subject to other influences than inflation.



Thats the 20 year degree plan.


On what? Making minimum for 20 years?



A home would require 21 years of work to purchase. Is that the american dream?


Hard to compare a 2700 foot home today with all the latest gadgets to a 1300 sq ft home back in 1968. The problem is you generate you point before you look for evidence and then you only find things that fit your point...like gas, which BTW is $1.90 a gallon now...nice you picked 2013...

A house with hardly anything in 1968 was $17 dollars a sq ft. Today typically that is $80 to $110. 1968 minimum wage was 1.60 which equals $10.90 today. $1.60 goes in to $10.90 6.8 times. 17 X 6.8 = 116 per sq ft. Many states have raised minimum wage to $10 so I think they are well in line with the BEST year for minimum wage. At 7.25 that comes out to 4.5 times or 17 X 4.5= 77 per sq ft, so that is a little under today's cost.

Bottom line don't buy a 3000 ft house if you make minimum wage...



Here's some food and the shopping list I used, ATS doesn't like me pasting the table in so Im only going to give totals here.
1 pound Apples
2 pounds Roast
3 pounds Steak
1 pound Bread
1 pound Butter
3 pounds Chicken
1 pound Coffee
12 Eggs
1 gallon Milk
1 pound Rice
1 pound Sugar

Year ---1950 ---- 1960 ---- 1970 ---- 1980 ---- 1990 ---- 2000 ---- 2010
Totals - 9.42 ---- 10.41 --- 12.93 --- 26.64 --- 35.01 --- 42.01 --- 59.90
Wage - 0.75 ----- 1 -------- 1.4------- 2 -------- 3.8 ------ 5.14 ----- 7.25
MinBuy 753.6 --- 624.60 -- 554.14 -- 799.20 --552.79 -- 490.39 -- 495.72


Missing your point...

Using 1970 at $1.40 that goes into $7.25 roughly 5.2 times. 12.93 x 5.3 = $67.20. 2010 that cost was $59.90, so you are saying is food cost more in 1970 than today.... right?


So if supply has gone up by atleast 200%, why has the cost only gone down from that time period by 11.5%? The answer to this question is that wages haven't kept up with the other gains in the economy.


It is because the average American consumes about 3 times the food per day than what they did back in 1968...





As far as tutoring goes, have you ever tutored college students? They have no money to pay for tutoring, which means they go through the free tutoring in the school (which is what I do). Those are paid through state/federal grants. They pay roughly 80% of minimum wage even though they require high gpa's, having taken the class, and a degree in the field before they'll hire you.


My point is tutoring as you do, or some kid mowing my grass is not a professional job. I asked for a list of jobs that take a degree and only pay minimum wage.

One last point, so are you suggesting that minimum wage should be $60k per year? I think that is closer to a combine living wage per household, but minimum wage was never designed to be a single living wage.

Bottom line is minimum wage in the 60s 70s 80s 90s 00 10s ALL suck and I remember back in the 70s even at 2x minimum I could not afford to live on my own without my parents help...



edit on 27-1-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
Things have become more complex and as such consumer expectations have risen.


You hit the nail on the head there. consumer expectations have risen. You try and put someone in a quality life that equaled to really good living in 1968 and they would scream inhuman punishment.

When I worked for close to minimum wage I lived in an apartment with a couch, a bed, cinder blocks and wood table and some used chairs. My revolving monthly cost was rent, food, gas, cheap car. That was it... Today I see 99%ers and homeless with IPhone 6s. We have turned into a vast and out of control consumer society. Its great if you can afford it, I can, so I do, but then you have someone who makes close to minimum wage and they think all that luxury is basics. This is why your 30 per hour is what you think you need.

I understand the difference between luxury and what is need for basics, and because of that I could live rather cheaply if need be.


edit on 27-1-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 10:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
On what? Making minimum for 20 years?


It takes money to learn skills to earn more, does it not? Those degrees cost money and college loans do more harm than good in the vast majority of situations.



Hard to compare a 2700 foot home today with all the latest gadgets to a 1300 sq ft home back in 1968. The problem is you generate you point before you look for evidence and then you only find things that fit your point...like gas, which BTW is $1.90 a gallon now...nice you picked 2013...


A 2700 sqft home isn't the average home today. Additionally, the fueling of larger and larger homes for the past couple decades was due to the easy lending practices that lead to the 2008 crash. Since then, new home buyers have generally been more affluent while buyers who don't comprise the wealthy in society have been buying older homes that are the same size.

As far as gas goes, I originally researched the data back in November of 2014. That's before the year was out so I couldn't very well include that year, instead I used the most recent which was 2013. For that matter, economic numbers still aren't in for 2014 so if I were to grab the data today I would still be using 2013.


Missing your point...

Using 1970 at $1.40 that goes into $7.25 roughly 5.2 times. 12.93 x 5.3 = $67.20. 2010 that cost was $59.90, so you are saying is food cost more in 1970 than today.... right?


Productivity, specifically farm productivity has increased by 250% since the mid 80's. It is over 300% since 1967 though we don't know the exact amount due to the records not being kept. If productivity has increased by over 300%, which means over 300% more goods in the market why has the price not fallen more than 11%? Supply and demand: With a greater supply comes a decrease in prices. That has not happened.


It is because the average American consumes about 3 times the food per day than what they did back in 1968...


So you're arguing people only consumed 700 calories per day in 1968? I have some sad news for you. The basket of goods I used was based on the BLS and their estimated shopping cart for an individual over a set period of time. That hasn't changed. I also have some more bad news for you, as I explained before prior to 1982 when we calculated inflation it was based on the cost of goods. During the late 70's one of the contributors to runaway inflation was people buying more products. Due to inflation being based on a change in the cost of goods, a new gadget that was brand new to the marketplace was replacing nothing, which made it a straight up increase to the amount of money people were spending. This lead to people spending far more and saving far less, which put more money into the economy, and ultimately lead to price increases. The 1982 reform started tracking household spending rather than cost per good for precisely this reason, now an Atari entering the market wouldn't be treated as $200 in inflation but rather just people choosing to spend their money on the gadget rather than more pricey food. This even lead to some sectors appearing to experience deflation as people would buy cheaper goods in order to purchase more goods.

By changing systems we stopped recording the inflation rate, which stopped bank loans, checking accounts, and everything else (like wages) from taking that inflation rate into account. We never stopped increasing the money supply though. Care to guess what happens when you increase the money supply but don't increase wages to compensate?


My point is tutoring as you do, or some kid mowing my grass is not a professional job. I asked for a list of jobs that take a degree and only pay minimum wage.


I gave you two. How are they not professional jobs? I've done some part time work teaching college classes too, again minimum wage. Why is tutoring a low grade elementary student more professional than tutoring college students learning actual skills? How about writing software like databases, websites, and apps? How is that not professional? I've done things like 3d modeling too and used it for rapid prototyping and 3d floorplan rendering. Are those not professional? All require degrees or years of experience, all have only paid minimum wage when I've done them.


One last point, so are you suggesting that minimum wage should be $60k per year? I think that is closer to a combine living wage per household, but minimum wage was never designed to be a single living wage.


It should be, yes. Of course I recognize that we can't go back to that overnight no employer could afford it, it would take decades of adjustments to get back to that point. I will however point out that the purchasing power of minimum wage in 1955 was equal to approximately $53,000 today.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join