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.

 

40% Of US Workers Now Earn Less Than 1968 Minimum Wage

page: 4
43
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 03:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: onequestion

I'll wager that 15 years ago, the figures would be identical.

Why is it an issue now?

Because the only jobs left are minimum wage jobs. High paying jobs don't exist anymore. companies are burdened by higher taxes, Obamacare, union demands so they down size or go overseas.

This is the new normal for America. Might as well get used to it.


15 years ago it was an issue, it just wasn't publicized as much. In fact if you go back to 1992, 23 years ago Clintons labor secretary Robert Reich was given his job specifically because he recognized this issue and was very vocal about it.

Why are people yelling now though? Because it's getting worse. The wage has been declining by a few percent per year for 35 years now and it's hit the point where it's critically low. Did you know we have less purchasing power today than the average person had in colonial times? Aside from a stint in the late 1800's we have less purchasing power for an hour worked today than at any other point in our nations history including during the depression. It is that bad.




posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 03:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: beezzer

Can't really disagree there.

Its better late than never.

I was going to antagonize you a little just for fun but i decided against it!


Just being straight up here.

It's easy to blame business and corporations, but think about it.

All businesses and corporations aren't greedy, corrupt bastions of evil.


It's not the fault of any specific corporation, they're just making decisions that keep themselves in business. What it is, is one of the failures of capitalism and competition. By competing we get better products, get them sooner, and get them cheaper. Getting them cheaper is the important thing because as long as the labor supply is greater than labor demand (things have been this way for a long time), wages of workers trend towards zero, because each person works cheaper than the next in order to get the job. This is why everyone under the 90th income percentile is going backwards in purchasing power to one extent or another.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 04:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
This is the new normal for America. Might as well get used to it.


How does getting used to it fix anything ?



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 05:35 AM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Portugal, the place where a 1 rom house in any major city costs at least 330$ and our minimum wage is 560$ monthly, 7856$ yearly.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 05:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: skunkape23
When cannibalism becomes a necessary survival tactic, I have a hunch which strata of society is going to be first on the grill.


The fats ones because they run slow?



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I agree with you.

I would also like to point out that corporations pay more "taxes" than is paid by most.

Our business pays approximately 25% of all revenue to one government entity or another. Between workman's comp, unemployment insurance, payroll taxes, sales taxes, real estate taxes, land use taxes, social security, medicare, mandatory insurance policies. Then if we manage to turn a net profit (that cannot be depreciated away) we then pay 30% on net profit. A fair amount of this money goes to pay for a ballooning government and foreign policy, and not to an underrepresented populace.

If people desire change, it really does start with government.

Not saying there aren't oligarchs in our midst today, only that we put them in power by electing corruptible officials, and believing that what is said on TV is actually true.




posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

I have thought for years that a "maximum wage" (based on the original Ben & Jerry's pay model) would do far more good than the minimum wage has. What Ben & Jerry's basically did was cap the highest paid employee's pay in direct proportion to the lowest paid employee. So if the lowest paid employee only earned $10,000 per year, then the highest paid employee could only earn $50,000 per year. As profits rise, so does the pay for all employees.

A Sweet Solution to the Sticky Wage Disparity Problem


...the social pact that Messrs. Cohen and Greenfield made with their employees at the start of their venture: From top to bottom, the pay ratio between the highest salaried executive and lowest-earning-worker would be no greater than 5 to 1.

To their credit, the ice cream kings kept to their pay scale deal for 16 years. At that point, Cohen was set to retire and no successor who was willing to accept B&J's compensation compact could be found.

So the bar was raised to 7 to 1 to attract new talent, and ultimately to 17 to 1 over the course of a half dozen years more. The company was then acquired by Unilever USA in 2000, after which the corporate cone of silence descended on what was once a very transparent practice.


This was completely voluntary on the part of Ben & Jerry's; and it was eliminated when bought out by a mega-corporation.

We could easily tie such a pay model into our tax code, with companies/corporations who follow this model paying a lower income tax rate than companies/corporations that do not follow this pay model. Once implemented, not only would the lower tax rate provide an incentive for companies to do so, so too would the inevitable higher employee turnover rates as the best employees would seek employment with those companies paying the commensurate rate of pay. At some point, only the worst employees would be available for the worst paying corporations, as the best employees would move to the best paying corporations.

And if this tax status was made public knowledge, then consumers would have the choice of where to spend their hard-earned dollars -- at the companies/corporations who share the wealth with the workers who created that wealth, or at the companies/corporations that hoard the wealth from the workers who created that wealth.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Part of the problem is yearly taxation, with the economy being what it is you have good years working full time making a fair wage, then you have bad years get layed off and work part time for minimum wage. Buying houses and cars takes years and encompass both the good and bad years of wage earning. I believe taxation should now reflect what you made the previous 10 years favoring the poor and middle class, in other words if your income sucked for 5 years straight, and you finally get a good job, the next 5 years you should get a drastically reduced rate of taxation to allow you to catch up to a normal standard of living.
Taxes are part of the problem, yes they are tiered upwards as you make more money which is fair, but it shouldn't be yearly, maybe you make a ton of money 1 year in a decade and lots of it goes to taxes and that is unfair reducing your buying power.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   
And that year cited in the OP is right around the time frame we were being inundated with Japanese Products and shortly after the country was in a recession.

The "Free" Trade pacts follow a recession every time.
We had China Favored Trade Status in the 90's and then eventually you run out of other peoples money to keep it afloat which resulted in bailing out the banks in 2008.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
This was completely voluntary on the part of Ben & Jerry's; and it was eliminated when bought out by a mega-corporation.


Both of them are worth well over $100 million and collected annual profits while they still owned the company.

This is the same bulls*** line that Warren Buffet plays when he recites that lame trope where he gets paid 'only' a $100,000 a year salary but in reality, which he cleverly omits, makes significantly more on dividends and stock valuations.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Boadicea
This was completely voluntary on the part of Ben & Jerry's; and it was eliminated when bought out by a mega-corporation.


Both of them are worth well over $100 million and collected annual profits while they still owned the company.

This is the same bulls*** line that Warren Buffet plays when he recites that lame trope where he gets paid 'only' a $100,000 a year salary but in reality, which he cleverly omits, makes significantly more on dividends and stock valuations.


I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, so forgive me if my response doesn't address your intended point...

Obviously the tax code we have now is grossly unfair and needs to be overhauled. It is absolutely unconscionable that unearned income should be taxed at a lower rate than the sweat of our brow. In my seldom humble opinion, I find the income tax on earned income to be unconscionable period, and I would eliminate it altogether. I would also eliminate income taxes on self-proprietors and family owned and run businesses, and instead let those government entitled and created fictional entities called "corporations" pick up the lion's share of the tax burden.

It's all about how Congress writes the legislation... will they honor their oath (and their consciences) and write it in accordance with the Social Contract and therefore in the best interest of we the people? Or will they violate their oath and honor and write it in accordance with the wishes of their biggest campaign donors? It can be done the right way or the wrong way.

Soooo, in my little paradigm, we completely eliminate income tax on earned income; institute one flat tax on unearned individual income and corporate income which follows the B&J model, with a higher flat tax on corporate income which chooses not to follow the B&J model. If the CEO accepts a salary, it will be untaxed just like every other employee... if the CEO takes all or part of his/her pay in stock options, etc., then that part will be taxed just like all other unearned income, and the corporation will be taxed at the higher rate.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nowornevertill

How does getting used to it fix anything ?


He says that because 80% of America really doesn't care, so what do you do? You going to fix it all by yourself, hell we can't even get these useless congressmen out of office because the few in their districts that do vote keep putting them back into office over and over without any clue of how bad they have failed them.

It is the way of the land now, so you have two choices to either work with it to your advantage or suffer...



edit on 7-6-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus


Both of them are worth well over $100 million and collected annual profits while they still owned the company.

This is the same bulls*** line that Warren Buffet plays when he recites that lame trope where he gets paid 'only' a $100,000 a year salary but in reality, which he cleverly omits, makes significantly more on dividends and stock valuations.


Why do you have animosity for companies that do pay much better? The parent company I work for is Boeing with 180,000 employees, and the typically pay there is well over 50k a year for everyone. So who cares if the CEO made 2 million last year and 15 million in dividends. If the CEO took the 15 million and split it all with the employees each one would get about a 80 bucks a year raise. Personally I want the CEO to make the company profitable for many years to come over the 80 extra bucks. If the company is profitable then he gets his money if not we all are out on the streets.

Unless you truly have a communist view point that everyone should be paid equally the dream since day one in America is to become successful.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: grmorrow

I dont like the things to come for those in power.


you think they would care, with so much history as to what happens to them, their own families, and their fortunes.
edit on 7-6-2015 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Yet, there are many who still are flourishing. Why is that the 60% are not experiencing that...? As a Canadian, who just spent a few weeks down in the States making $$$ - Why is this an issue for those who live and pay taxes there? Btw, I paid my taxes - win some/lose some.

This may sound unrelated but, it is strongly related: Perhaps many lack "Imagination/vision/courage to step out of their comfort zone" and therefore lack personal responsibility? They place the blame on the system instead of their own seemingly lack of awareness...


Secondly, big corporations are replacing as many expensive workers with machines, computers and robots as they possibly can. As technology continues to advance at a blistering pace, the need for workers (especially low-skilled workers) will continue to decrease.


"The opportunities of man are limited only by his imagination. But so few have imagination that there are ten thousand fiddlers to one composer." - Charles F. Kettering

Fiddlers (pawns of effect) place the blame on external reasons...such as the ones listed in the OP. Composers (creators of cause) pay no attention to such trivial matters.

I wish you a very good life.

Wake up.




edit on 7-6-2015 by Involutionist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I was raised in Michigan, now live in Oregon and my Oregon born husband and I were discussing last week wages of tipped employees. I argued that they make far less than minimum wage (thinking back to my days as a waitress in the 90's making $1.73 and hour) he cried bullsnot....tipped employees are paid at least minimum wage.

Come to find out, we were both correct....depending on the state you live in:

www.dol.gov...

This practice needs to stop. Every adult deserves to make a living wage and shouldn't depend on the kindness of customers.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   
IMHO everybody is right and wrong about things. Personally, I think this is all tied to the world economy slowly finding a balance. There're billions of people and poor/rich nations and all of them have to find an equilibrium to secure a world economy. Like it or hate it, we're all on this ship together and have to learn to work cooperatively. We cannot section off areas of hte planet and forbid them from participating. What happens there spills over into every other place. It's in everybody's interest.

But all of this will happen again, and again and again. So we might find a decent equilibrium for a while, but it too will be lost and regained ad infinitum. This is the way it works because change and ignorance always recur. There's no silver bullet. It's like war. Never changes. And sin. And accidents. Disasters. These things will always exist.

Ok so I'm not saying sit back and take rat poison or blithely ignore everything. People must believe they can change the state of affairs. And they can. But this rock and rolling show doesn't stop. It's life itself.
edit on 7-6-2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   

That isn't a lot of money, but according to the Social Security Administration, 40.28% of all workers make less than $20,000 a year in America today.


Yeah that is a joke, and I would go so far as to say nothing, but propaganda.

Because the only thing they look at is 'hourly' wage. What they, and many,MANY people will never look at is the benefits employees get today compared then.

When one looks at those benefits: social security,medicare of which employers are matching that is employee income. We just never see it.

Then figuring in other benefits, such as workmans comp, unemployement.

All of which is employee income.

Employees of today make more, have more benefits than the previous generations.


And yet nothing ever satisfies them.

Stuck on the perpetual id complex.
edit on 7-6-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 01:15 PM
link   
If the economy is not going to change I'm gonna have to do something way different. I guess I need some "make it work to my advantage lessons".

I'm lucky to still have a roof over my head.

I've been fortunate to make decent money for quite a while but the more I made the more the cost of everything went up and I've never been able to get ahead to save my life. I had a 401K but had to cash it in to survive. Now I have no retirement other than social security and I don't know if that will be here for me when I need it, I have no idea. If it goes like everything else, the very day I need to draw it it'll be gone. They'll be like Oh you want to start drawing SS? LOL! They did away with that two weeks ago.

Its too late for me to get a good government job where I could get 80% of my original pay for retirement in 30 years.
I have 32 years and 2 summers where I'm at now and there is no retirement in sight.

I feel like the cost of everything needs to go way down. Land tax, tag tax and all kind of licence and fees for every little thing needs to be gone or knocked down about 98%. That would help a lot.


edit on 7-6-2015 by Voyager1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: onequestion

This is the new normal for America. Might as well get used to it.


Why should people have to get used to it?




top topics



 
43
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join