Proof a Living Wage is Possible

a reply to: nwtrucker

Minimum wage in CA 1991, $4.25 per hour

4.25 × 40 × 52 = 8,840 annual
8840 ÷ 12 = 736 per month

Low income apartment was $400
Utilities $100
Car insurance was $50
Total $550
Food, Fuel and Entertainment $186 per month.

Add - I think taxes were about 5% of my income when I didn't work overtime. So I probably only had $150 for food, fuel and entertainment. I do remember not liking only having one job with no overtime. So I didn't do it much.

I often worked overtime or a second job for money but I didn't have too.

This was life for an 18 year old in 1991, and there were plenty of jobs for anyone willing to work for minimum wage. The US economy has fallen quickly.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Utopia? Not on this planet.

I'll take my way. Not yours. I already make more than your pittance you want as a minimum.

I've earned it. But if I can score 35k for asking if you want cheese on your burger? Then, screw it. You fight the weather and move the freight, the food and everything else this system provides you with.

I'll sweep floors 8 hours a day and coast home.

This isn't impinging on you. Let me try this....over my dead body.....Got it? Good.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: ketsuko

Unless you are promoting an Anarchist Free Market, there is no form of government that shouldn't elect it's brightest minds to lead it.

We can however, through a new constitutional matrix, greatly reduce or eliminate the ability of our elected leaders to impose new laws outside a pure democratic process. And continue to uphold and expand our bill of rights.

I am sorry, but I am looking at the US government and then reading what you say and then looking at the US government where we have people like Sheila Jackson Lee who thinks there is an American flag planted on Mars to drive the rovers past. People who think Guam could tip over because there are too many people on it and others like them.

We do not elect our best and brightest to government. We elect the ones who are most charismatic.

I said "should", currently we elect idiots looking for a cooperate paycheck. And the best orators of the group get to run for president.

I agree with you completely on this point.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Prime examples why I have opted out of (except this post) these wage convos here on ATS. There are some that portray the 1% and others who act like they are something or someone we should care about.

a reply to: nwtrucker

If you actually look at the example in the OP everyone except the 894 would end up with more.

Likely in proportion to there actuall job difficulty.

No one would do the work your describing if they could make the same amount doing half the work. Your wage would go up by necessity just like the minimum wage worker.

No one looses except greed. Even those making over 20 Million win. They can finally let go of their insatiable desire for wealth and power long enough to enjoy what money they have.

Doing nothing leads to the NSA, militarized police force, reduced freedom of speech, and more outsourced labor to other countries through bad trade agreements.

There is no options to do nothing, unless you want to end up with no freedom. You may have a different ideology, but so far your not presenting anything but more of the same system we have that has destroyed this nation over the last 100 years.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: nwtrucker

Prime examples why I have opted out of (except this post) these wage convos here on ATS. There are some that portray the 1% and others who act like they are something or someone we should care about.

The only reason I care about the 1% is they are ruining the country I live in.

I care about the low wage earner because it's degrading to not be able to support yourself and your family. We need manual laborers and most people wouldn't want to do the work they do. To pay them enough for a two bedroom apartment and reliable transportation is the least we can do, and the math proves it is possible.

a reply to: Isurrender73

here is the wrong mindset apparently though.

Nowadays we only have so many jobs in the USA that pay enough to live the American dream.

There is a really good chance you will bury yourself with student debt before you even get that degree towards the American dream.

While you are studying for an expertise in the IT field, your company is paying training courses overseas to replace you. There will be no recourse on your part, suck it up buddy.

America is a corporation now, not a country, so get used to it.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Isurrender73

here is the wrong mindset apparently though.

Nowadays we only have so many jobs in the USA that pay enough to live the American dream.

There is a really good chance you will bury yourself with student debt before you even get that degree towards the American dream.

While you are studying for an expertise in the IT field, your company is paying training courses overseas to replace you. There will be no recourse on your part, suck it up buddy.

America is a corporation now, not a country, so get used to it.

I agree. I hold onto a sliver of optimism though. Sometimes I'm not sure why.

It makes me physically sick to think that people can earn so many millions each year!! That in my opinion is far too much and pure unadulterated greed!! Ive learned to live on so little, so little that many i know would even struggle to live on that. Im glad ive learned to live on so little because ive learned the true value of money, as opposed to these people that earn millions. What ive learned to live on weekly would be like having pennies to them. They wouldnt even know where to begin when living on such a small ammount. Money changes people and makes them greedy for more money and power. The rich are proud boastful people that show off their wealth and snobbery, look at the poor as vermin and think they should be treated like royalty!! Like i said, im glad ive lived the poor life, ive learned humility, empathy, love and compassion.compassion for my fellow man. Ive become wise way before my age has advanced. Ive learned to survive on nothing and be grateful. Ive learned that for all the material possessions one may aquire in life means nothing as you leave it behind when you die. The most valuable things one can aquire in life is family and trust worthy friends. If i won the lottery id share it with all my family and friends pretty evenly and in unique thoughtful ways. Money makes one greedy and selfish. Rant over and completely off topic!! Gd night all........

So hate the rich people. Get their money.


This is how socialism starts.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
So hate the rich people. Get their money.


This is how socialism starts.

Actually Socialism starts when the majority of citizens feel like those at the top of the pyramid are taking advantage of them. Or when the majority live in poverty and can't find work, while the wealthy hoard everything for themselves.

If every citizen willing to work was making a living wage that increased with the cost of living there would be no reason to demand change.

Uncontrolled Capitalism leads to Facisim, which finally causes a Socialist Revolution. It should be obvious by now, but the Elitists have a serious problem actually learning from history.

I don't hate rich people. I hate the greed and insatiable desire for power that some people display. I would prefer they stop trying to change the world to their liking and just enjoy the money they have.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

I don't hate rich people. I hate the greed and insatiable desire for power that some people display. I would prefer they stop trying to change the world to their liking and just enjoy the money they have.

"and just enjoy the money they have"

How good of you to allow them to enjoy what hey have. How good of you to allow me to enjoy what I have.

But I will want more. I will work for it, I will earn it and I will enjoy it.

And when someone tries to take it away from me because they don't have what I have, I will defend myself to keep it.

a reply to: Isurrender73

You want to back currency with a shiny rock. Shiny rocks are no different then paper. The elitists control the value of the shiny rocks just as easily as they control the value of paper.

Currently the majority of the Elite who own all the gold would love a gold standard because they would still have all the wealth and power.

Shiny yellow noncorrosive metals can't be made at 8AM Monday morning by typing zeros in a computer.

There is a limited amount of gold. Gold backed money increases in value as the amount of stuff in the world increases because there is the same amount of gold backed money but more stuff to spend it on. Gold backed money causes the opposite of inflation. Gold Money increases in value over time.

Gold backed money also prevents big government by limiting the amount of credit. The American War Between the States and World War I could not have been fought on the Gold Standard. There was not enough gold in the Union to pay for the War Between the States and there was not enough gold in world to pay for WW1.

The Elite might have a disproportionate amount of gold. That is not due the gold standard qua gold standard. Elite hording of smart people into the financial system (instead of being engineers, scientists, writers and doctors) and gold and other things, is due to the political system, which the elite will always control more than working people. Lip service to socialistic ideals has worked well for them.

The government is supposed to coin gold as a testament to its weight and purity. The government is not supposed to print money.

Real money keeps its value

en.wikipedia.org...#/media/File:Us-gold-certificate-1922.jpg

Close up on the important part

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: jacobe001

I believe your example of the trucking industry is incorrect.

Every major trucking company has the goal of expansion. Quotas are set to hire new drivers. Their credit lines allow them to buy the equipment as needed...restricted only by the number of drivers hired.

Add all those quotas up and you have a fake 'shortage'.

The reason it is in actuality a fraud is the loads for those theoretical new drivers would be taken away from other companies via lower rates and perks. If there was an actual shortage, rates would soar and loads wouldn't be delivered.

Excellent analysis IMO.

For any would be truckers -- It is easy to get hired but sometimes there are no loads, especially for new guys. Keeping a good off duty schedule so as to be ready to drive on a moments notice is a 24/7 job. Being dependable is the best way to get loads at the company that gets to know you.

That and being in no hurry to get home.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Actually Socialism starts when the majority of citizens feel like those at the top of the pyramid are taking advantage of them. Or when the majority live in poverty and can't find work, while the wealthy hoard everything for themselves.

Socialism started when people who wanted power promised to give the masses money in exchange for increased governmental centralization and control.

Socialism started in the 1800's when the costs of things were getting cheaper through mass production and new technology was making everyone healthier, wealthier, and more comfortable.

Socialism saved us from that.

The Living Wage, huh?

From the late 1980s through the 1990s and into the early 2000s, under GHW Bush, Bill Clinton and Dubya Bush, the United States decided to... basically, betray its national workforce by allowing its industrial plant to slip off to China for cheap, cheap labor.

From that point on, the so-called 'middle-class' nosedived into an extinction while the federal government lost billions and billions in yearly industrial tax revenues. Panic almost immediately set-in on Capitol Hill so the Social Security fund was then repeatedly raped to fulfill pork-barrel spending.

Today, SS is slowly dying under a form of... call it, bureaucratic hospice care. There is no cure, just a countdown clock.

The so-called 'living wage' drive is, basically, an effort to take what has been turned into a nation of smiley fastfood feeders and Wal-Mart parking lot shopping buggy retrievers, and pay them like they are working all those many, many now-abandoned steel and textile mills that have either been abandoned, burned or turned into self storage.

The living wage... wow. That term has so much hypocrisy.

Have a nice day

...

a reply to: redoubt

In essence, I'd agree.

The wording is a bit harsh, however.

The alternative-at the time- was stay home, let European companies invest in China's explosive growth and end up with those corporations raking in the profit from under-cutting those U.S. companies that 'stayed home'.

We'd have had job loss in any event. Those companies that stayed home losing business or even going out of business isn't much different than relocating in the long run.

We can, however, point out the idiocy of having a tax that charges 30% on corporations that bring those profits back into the U.S. and zero tax if they leave those monies outside the U.S..

Reverse it and charge the corporations 30% that don't bring those profits back to the U.S. and zero if they do...

Stay at home or not, either way the world no longer would have depended on the U.S. manufacturing machine.

My beef is with the free-trade crowd....both parties. How does that work for us? It might work for those few big corporations but certainly not for America over-all.

What's left out of this socialist solution is the inflation caused by the domino effect. Now that 35k isn't as livable any more and the same mechanism kicks in again....this time with precedent and away we go again.

Sorry, but socialism isn't the solution. It's a trap. Pure and simple. The third rail of third rails that no politician will ever question once implemented.

Withdraw from the WTO? Maybe. Tariffs based on wage equity? Maybe. Tariffs based on environmental issues? Perhaps.

In the mean-time, one does what one has to do to survive. This too will change, it always does.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Actually, I agree with Isurrender73 on that point.

The arbitrary value of gold was fixed at 35 dollars an ounce for a while.(In the day)

As the paper money market has been manipulated-they don't even "print" the money they create, these days, just create it and credit it into accounts, usually when cashing T-Bills...., they can and would manipulate the value of gold as well.

A trifle harder, but in essence, not a fix.

There are a number of countries without, 'Feds' or Central Banking systems, they all do the same thing. it's the power not the mechanism that's abused.

a reply to: Isurrender73

The point you seem to miss is the manipulation merely changes names from unchecked capitalism to unchecked socialism.

If you think you can keep socialism in check, then apply the checks to capitalism. Can't see the fix? A tough nut to crack!

It would end up worse with socialism. The socialist agenda is run by the same capitalists. It ensures their power by restricting change that might knock them out of the top of the food chain.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Well, if you pulled that off, then all the power to you.

I stayed with my parents at 18. That made my minimum wage 'livable'. I didn't make any babies either....whew,....

Many families stay together and share revenues. It works. it's livable. I'm not interested in changing our economic system so that an 18 year old can afford his own car and apartment.

The window of the apparent affluence you refer to is a small one. Families stayed together longer in the day. Often grandparents held sway with three generations under the same roof.

The litany of social programs out there for every conceivable scenario that exists today was undreamt of in the past. Single mom programs, food stamps, free medical for kids. Job training. Low income housing.

You want higher wages? Close the damn borders. Apply the law that's already on the books. The pressure to increase wages will increase. No, not a full solution, more a step in the right direction.

Here's the bottom line. What you propose will not happen in the U.S.. Even with strong regional support of your views or even Obama-like by-passing of Congress, there will be states that tell the feds to 'go forth and multiply'....the original F-Bomb.

The union will cease to exist. Likely, lead will fly.

I will pass, thanks.