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.

 

Issuing a challenge to conservative's

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 06:14 AM
link   
NOT THE MUD PIT

I challenge conservatives to use data from before minimum wage and when the minimum wage was the highest (1961) to support their free market principles.

No platitudes. Take some real data and make a real argument.
SNIP

FDR Library marist.edu


The law I have just signed was passed to put people back to work, to let them buy more of the products of farms and factories and start our business at a living rate again.


Key words; living rate.



In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.



Wuuuuuuuuutttt? No way. I have read over and over and over that it's not suppose to be a living wage. Apparently FDR when signing this into law felt different. SNIP



Throughout industry, the change from starvation wages and starvation employment to living wages and sustained employment can, in large part, be made by an industrial covenant to which all employers shall subscribe.


So, actually compile data to support your argument that minimum wage has been worse than it was before it exist. You have hundreds of years of historical data. Use it and make an argument.

Do it without platitudes.
edit on 1-3-2019 by toysforadults because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/1/2019 by Blaine91555 because: snipped needless political snipes



+18 more 
posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

Wow, a leftist socialist president signed leftist socialist laws?!

Mind blown.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: watchitburn

name calling isn't a valid point of view



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 06:39 AM
link   
What do you consider a living wage ?
Actually asking to make a point.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 06:42 AM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

in 1938 it was considered $0.25

swhsupply.com...



Average cost of new house $4,100.00
Average wages per year $1,780.00


Closest housing cost stat I can find. 8x your yearly salary would buy you a new house on minimum wage.

That's your metric depending on where you live.
edit on 1-3-2019 by toysforadults because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 06:50 AM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

"That" argument ? I simply asked what you consider a living wage. Are you saying it depends on where you live and cost of living in that area ?



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 06:51 AM
link   
8X the minimum wage here in Indiana is $120,640/year. That is enough to buy a decent home in a decent area here.
edit on 1-3-2019 by Middleoftheroad because: (no reason given)


+25 more 
posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

The framing of your argument is rather disingenuous.

The USA hasn't operated as a free market since before President Wilson, our first Progressive president.

What we deal with now as business-people is instead best described as crony capitalism. The government getting to choose the winners and losers.

It is rather easy to show that a minimum wage merely raises the cost of a product, thus raising the cost of living.

Which in turn impacts the entry-level laborer the hardest.

Just basic economics.

So no, I'm not entering into your carefully crafted argument.

Because you have based it on a false premise.



+7 more 
posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Adjusted for inflation, .25 cents in 1938 is 4.35$ today.

Minimum wage has done pretty well then. Its double that.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 06:52 AM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

Not only in the states but it has to be added a simple fact.

Working someone to death just so they can earn enough to survive is NOT acceptable it is SLAVERY.

Living wage and above is a necessary rate of pay that has to be kept in place but without exception not only in your nation were there has been a well known consolidation of power and wealth into fewer and fewer hand's as your democracy has been completely undermined and replaced with corporate (financial-) meritocracy and your nations small business have almost completely evaporated to be replaced with large corporations that strip mine your economy then having raped it go and build there factory's abroad taking those job's with them while still maintaining a stranglehold through there illegitimate political cronies over your economy.

Living wage allow's the poorest workers to have enough to live on in a single job and a little bit over, that excess money does not stay in there pocket it goes back into your retail market's, fund's new small business, reinvigorates run down neighborhood's and spark's new franchise and small business expansion into them.

Sub living wage create's apathy, depression, anger, desperation, crime and a need to escape the living purgatorial existence of a wage slave by any mean's necessary, it fuels people fleeing from there own lives right into the arm's of criminal's and drug dealers.

Now some or ALL of this may apply to your nation but it also applies to mine and to many other's were right wing politics has had a free run now since the delicate balancing act they used to play was dropped along with any charade that they cared about our people's when there former ideological enemy the Soviet union collapsed, now no longer fearing the repercussions of going too far to the right in there policy's, of stripping wealth back from there people and of reducing there populations to nations in serfdom the elite now feel free to push there agenda of putting there boot well and truly to the neck's of the general population, the poor and the working class but then they were always slavers were they not?.

edit on 1-3-2019 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 06:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

It's really basic argument.

economy pre and post minimum wage and said impact present with actual data

there's tons and tons of data of pre and post, use it and present your argument with facts not rhetoric



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: caterpillage

do we really need to debunk government CPI?

if you don't understand why that number doesn't reflect actual inflation...



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 06:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
8X the minimum wage here in Indiana is $120,640/year. That is enough to buy a decent home in a decent area here.


I have no idea what it should be I have no clue I'm not even saying it's a good idea I'm asking for a real analysis of pre and post using factual data and not just Fox News talking points

I've literally never seen anyone do it



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 06:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: caterpillage

do we really need to debunk government CPI?

if you don't understand why that number doesn't reflect actual inflation...


How far off is the governments cpi then? In percent, roughly.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 06:59 AM
link   


I challenge conservatives to use data from before minimum wage and when the minimum wage was the highest (1961) to support their free market principles.


Should that data account for INFLATION and cost of living being lower than it is today?

That's right people.

People need to be paid a living wage so they can go buy more stuff from China because they've made the cost of doing business so high.

It's cheaper to make snip elsewhere using SLAVE LABOR so "muricans can go out and buy the latest gadgets, and new STUFF.

Not much of a challenge.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 06:59 AM
link   
I like Ahabster's post in another thread where he shows actual inflation by comparing wages to cost of gold

you can only understand that argument if you understand the impact of inflationary monetary policy on the dollar and how it reflects on it's purchasing power of assets or asset value

that's probably the truest measure but many wouldn't understand without first understanding how the dollar works and how the price of gold works



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 07:00 AM
link   



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 07:01 AM
link   
I'm still waiting for someone to assert a real position...



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

Only if there is no healthy competition, there is no such thing as free trade monopoly's always buy it up so regulated trade and industry is actually the only ETHICAL way to go to ensure that healthy competition can succeed, rather than one guy owning all five hardware stores in a town he may be limited to two or three leaving room for competition to enter the town - of course there is always hidden monopolization and owning the supplier as well.
Free competition on the other hand keep's the cost of product and service down, when monopolization is discouraged and even actively prevented it also keep's prices low, quality high and service punctual.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 07:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: DAVID64

in 1938 it was considered $0.25

swhsupply.com...



Average cost of new house $4,100.00
Average wages per year $1,780.00


Closest housing cost stat I can find. 8x your yearly salary would buy you a new house on minimum wage.

That's your metric depending on where you live.


Yes, you could get it together on a low wage to buy a house even in the early 1970s in the UK on a fairly low wage. That is how the baby boomers scored because the houses were cheap in relation to wages and then the housing market/real estate market kicked in which was a winning lottery ticket for them all. They were in the right place at the right time.

Now we have the minimum wage and yet nobody on the minimum wage in the UK could afford to save for a deposit and pay the mortgage. Even a couple on the minimum wage, both working and without children, would seriously be struggling in most parts of the UK. There are still a few undesirable areas where houses are cheaper, but even there they are still an investment.

Where I live the house prices are now so steep, approx 12 times the minimum wage. So even for a couple it would still be 6 times their combined annual take home pay.

In the U.S,


The weekly take-home pay for a 40-hour-a-week minimum-wage employee, after Social Security and Medicare taxes. That adds up to $13,926.38 per year, or just over $1,150 per month. The commonly cited minimum wage annual salary for a 40-hour-a-week worker is $15,080



US$188,900. That's the median price of an existing home sold in the U.S. in January. (February data will be released by the National Association of Realtors later this month.) The Median Home Price Is $188,900.


Yep, it is most depressing! It is 13.5641853806 times more than the annual minimum wage. This is how badly we in the U.S and UK have drifted into relative poverty for MOST of our citizens. The biggest population portion of our societies are on or close to the minimum wage.

This is a HOUSING CRISIS.

It is forcing a rental market for most of us, yet the rental market is not building anything like fast enough. This obviously can't go on. We need look no further to understand why we have so many homeless people.

Women going to work has not made families twice as rich. Minimum wages have made poverty worse. Everything seems poorer for most to me. I see it clearly and the figures tell me my observation and concern is real.

I think we need emergency measures. We need to build a lot of new houses very quickly yet somehow protect the investments and not flood the market. For now building social housing that is protected by legislation would not interfere with the real estate market as these people will never be in that market anyway until possibly much later down the line where they may become right to buy tenants all over again (just another case of history repeating in a good way) only as renters to be exploited by business landlords and thast is part of the real estate market anyway.

Look, in Britain the council houses made money for the councils in two ways, as rental income then as recouped costs by selling to their tenants. After that they have a third life as private real estate - playing their part in the real estate market at the low end of the market generally, but still an important part of this market and industry.

So, were they a waste of time? I think not. They were worth building and now the need has arisen they are worth building again, but with a little more care and sensitivity this time round.

Who really cares who does it? I do not. It just needs legislating for and regulating. Does it matter if it is the government/ part government/ private or even all private? Not to me it doesn't.

Getting a balance on wages relating to living costs is paramount. it is way too greedy and money grabbing right now and is causing great poverty, distress and insecurity for MOST citizens in the U.S, UK and I expect other Western states if France is anything to go by.

I would say that women going to work has made "them" twice as much out us, but for us it is just two times the work for the same money. The minimum wage is creating poverty, not rectifiying it. It is really like the setting of standards of worker poverty for most. It is very Marxist considering we are supposed to be Free Market democracies. It is giving most a wage that will never allow them to actually participate in the economies of their societies other than be at the mercy of them for such very primary and basic needs like "shelter".


edit on 1-3-2019 by Malak777 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join