Social Issue: On Economies - The Minimum Wage

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
By the way..... you can just right-click on the "Post Reply" button, and choose "open in a new window". Then you can copy/paste the relevant info, close the original window, then hit the
ost Reply" button.


Ah, thanks. I didn't know that. Bet it would solve other problems, too, like the whole thing disappearing when I backspace to look at something already posted.



If you overpay on your taxes, the money refunded to you is 'your' money.


Yes, but that's also true if you don't. What you owe the government in taxes is spelled out in the tax laws. Say I owe $15,000 in taxes this year. That means that $15,000 of my gross salary isn't mine, but is an obligation I owe the federal government. If in the course of the year I pay Uncle Sam $20,000, then I've paid them $15,000 of the government's money, and another $5,000 of my own, which they then refund to me because it ain't theirs, it's mine. If I paid $50,000, then that means I've paid $15,000 of the government's money and another $35,000 of my own. (Why? I don't know. Maybe I should fire my accountant.) And so the IRS will be refunding me $35k. But in both cases, the amount of taxes I'm actually paying is the same: $15k.

A tax cut or tax increase changes that $15k number to something higher or lower. And so, given a figure that I've paid in over the year, it also changes my refund (or the amount Uncle Sugar tells me to pay up).



I used your quote from the Constitution as to what the Legislature can do pertaining to owning/buying land


This discussion has gotten me interested in the history of public ownership of land in this country. I'm going to have to look into that some more.




posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
As to the land I mentioned, here is a partial list. These are World Heritage Sites, run by the BLM, but controlled by UNESCO. I'll have to get the total acreage tomorrow.


I don't care about the total acreage. What I want you to do, is to present evidence that even ONE acre is "controlled" (definition, please) by a U.N. agency (UNESCO or any other). The exact acreage is a secondary question that need not be answered if you have no such evidence.



HA HA HA HA HA..... I supply figures as they pertain to the facts I submit.


The definition of "rich" is not a "fact." It's a decision on how we will use a word.

I had something very specific in mind when I referred to "tax cut favoring the rich," and it was not $80k in annual income. And since we are discussing what I was talking about, my definition is the one that counts.



the amendment (IRS) was never properly ratified or responded to in the correct manner by the states, and in some cases replies were not received within the time alotted.


www.law.emory.edu...-16



The sixteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Sixty-first Congress on the 12th of July, 1909, and was declared, in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, dated the 25th of February, 1913, to have been ratified by 36 of the 48 States. The dates of ratification were: Alabama, August 10, 1909; Kentucky, February 8, 1910; South Carolina, February 19, 1910; Illinois, March 1, 1910; Mississippi, March 7, 1910; Oklahoma, March 10, 1910; Maryland, April 8, 1910; Georgia, August 3, 1910; Texas, August 16, 1910; Ohio, January 19, 1911; Idaho, January 20, 1911; Oregon, January 23, 1911; Washington, January 26, 1911; Montana, January 30, 1911; Indiana, January 30, 1911; California, January 31, 1911; Nevada, January 31, 1911; South Dakota, February 3, 1911; Nebraska, February 9, 1911; North Carolina, February 11, 1911; Colorado, February 15, 1911; North Dakota, February 17, 1911; Kansas, February 18, 1911; Michigan, February 23, 1911; Iowa, February 24, 1911; Missouri, March 16, 1911; Maine, March 31, 1911; Tennessee, April 7, 1911; Arkansas, April 22, 1911 (after having rejected it earlier); Wisconsin, May 26, 1911; New York, July 12, 1911; Arizona, April 6, 1912; Minnesota, June 11, 1912; Louisiana, June 28, 1912; West Virginia, January 31, 1913; New Mexico, February 3, 1913.

Ratification was completed on February 3, 1913.


There was no time limit. No time limit is contained in Article V of the Constitution, which prescribes how the document can be amended. Where amendments have had time limits (e.g., the Equal Rights Amendment), that was spelled out in the language of the amendment itself. The 16th contains no such language, but even if it had, usually the limit is 7 years, and the ratification of the 16th amendment was completed in less than 4.

Thus, there can be no cases in which "replies were not received within the time alotted," as the time alotted was infinite.

As for it being ratified in the "correct manner" by the states -- the Constitution prescribes that ratification can be done either by the legislature of the state or by a convention. When the legislature ratifies, the presumption is that it may do so by simple majority vote. Have you any evidence that this was not done in any of the ratifying states? You have certainly presented none.


"....since World War II, the economy has consistently done BETTER, not worse, when taxes were higher.




The figures provided show you to be wrong [about periods of higher taxes being also periods of higher economic growth]


You have presented no figures addressing that topic. However, I will do so.

Economic history of the U.S.

Take a look at the graph at the beginning of the article. Slow growth is evident from the nation's founding until about 1860. The curve steepens slightly after that, representing the growth of industry, building of railroads, etc., but the increase in slope is not dramatic until after the 1930s. A deep dip in the economy is shown in the 1930s, representing of course the Great Depression. Since the Depression, taxes have been dramatically higher than they were prior to or during the Depression, and if your notion was correct, we should see much slower economic growth in the post-1940 graph than we do prior to that. Yet the reverse is the case: the slope steepens very dramatically after about 1934-35, and shows much more rapid growth thereafter overall.

That alone should be enough to invalidate the idea that high taxes cripple the economy. But further, if you look at the recessions that have occurred in the postwar years (setting aside the very steep, but brief, recession at the end of the war itself), you will find that they tended to coincide with periods when taxes were cut.

Again, I'm not arguing that taxes spur economic growth. But I am saying that the idea that low taxes are necessary for strong economic growth, or even improve economic growth, is refuted by the actual tax and economic history of the United States. We do not see any such pattern.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Every company cited in this thread began as a small business -Wal Mart, Mc Donalds, Microsoft, even (I assume) Exxon.
The current minumum wage, combined with federal, state and local taxation; makes it difficult for small businesses to prosper.

I failed miserably at opening a coffee shop about a decade ago. My credit rating wasn't good enough to secure a start-up loan and the 12 grand my busness partner and I had wasn't quite enough money to get the business off the ground. But I still remember all the number crunching and figuring that went into our business plan. Back then, the federal, state and local employment taxes totaled 17.8% paid by the company. That's in addition to the amount the employee pays. And the company doesn't get that money back at the end of the year the way a minimum wage employee does...

So a minumum wage employee would cost the company $6.07 for every hour worked.
That's 13 cups of coffee. Or 8 lattes. Or 6 fountain sodas.

Given the location we had chosen, we stood a very good chance of profiting, but not getting rich. If the minimum wage were higher, we would have had to raise prices. This would have lost us some business. People would have gone somewhere cheaper; like 7-11.

Pardon me, I kind of went off on a tangent there. My point is that small business must rely on the available workforce. They do not have the option of hiring outside the country. A higher minimum wage hurts start-up businesses. While I'm all for a "liveable wage", the line must be drawn in a place that balances between the country's need for small businesses and the people's need for a minimum wage.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I just tried to clarify a point or two, including the fact that, despite Marxist predictions to the contrary, capitalism thrives and offers opportunities to those who are willing to pursue their dreams


I completely agree. I'm just contending that if the government is going to have its nose in the economy at all, it's got to be keep it balanced.
If the government wasn't going to impose taxes or intervene against strikes that hurt the country or have vagrancy laws and land ownership which prevent people from choosing to withdraw from the economy and go their own way, then at least on a strictly philosophical level I'd say lassiez faire is acceptable because the people can go another way if they don't like what the economic system offers them. But since the order of our society all but compells us to live within the system, the government then assumes the duty to protect our liberty to some certain degree since they have placed us here and bound us from certain means of resistance.


Also, I have to admit that I have been rather industry specific in my analysis. This is a consequence of my status as an ametuer. For lack of having a gospel written in stone I've got to model it in my own mind, and to do the whole thing on a macro level... wow. I like to pretend I'm smart but I can't pretend to keep track of an economy as big as America's.

It's been challenging and worthwhile as always Grady.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Busymind

as far as I know, the resturant industry can pay their waitresses a wage that is lower than the minimum wage, considerably lower, and well, susposedly their tips are susposed to make up the difference. matter or fact, tips are now becoming more mandatory in that they are automatically becoming part of the bill. so, the customer is being forced to pay more for the service, aren't they?

so, just out of curiousity, how did you employees live?? did they rely on government programs to pay their rent, a husband, parents, or just struggled through maybe sold a few bags of weed on the side....just wondering. how would you have felt if your employee called in one day, and well, told you they wouldn't be in, they had to be at the welfare office instead, or their husband needed this or that done. ya know, if they are depending more than you for their survival, then well, they have more than one "lord", you're gonna have to accept the fact that you must share your employer with another, and in the end the lords' desires may clash with each other. that's just the way life is.

ya know, the government seems to like giving breaks and credits ect to businesses, heck they'd take my land and give it to some business if I had a peice of land they wanted!! albeit, the businesses that seem to profit the most from their generousity seems to be pretty big and established. and, it sounds to me that you are saying that you have to depend on someone else to keep your employees alive, sheltered, fed, ect. you're employees need help in this area because you need help in this area. so, why shouldn't the government step in and help you pay a decent wage to begin with? or, why shouldn't society in general be willing to pay a little more for you to be able to? it more than likely would be alot less expensive than the thousands of government employees that spend their days in thousands of different offices of many different agencies who dish taxmoney out to millions of possibly needy people, many times losing a considerable amount of money in the process.

[edit on 27-7-2006 by dawnstar]



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 05:27 AM
link   
Am I missing something here? How are these people suppose to live on your min wage? They don't, they exist on the min wage. Think about it, while all of your poor pitiful small bus is worrying about making more profit. The min wage earner is deciding what bill to pay, and what bill that maybe can wait. They are putting off going to the doctor, they live in substandard housing. They can't save money, because there's none left. If they have a car , the price of gas is hurting them twice as much as you and me. Justify the min wage all you want, but at the other end of the min wage is human beings



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Since when is the buck more inportant that the person earing it ??
hes something of an example of how companys are USEING people to further there own profits.
sharries resturant in renton wa pays there servers $8.50 an hour.
there coffie is $1.57
a burger is $7.95

the same company in Nampa idaho pays there servers $3.50 an hour
there coffie is $1.57
a burger is $7.95

when asked by me why dont they pay there servers more i was told that the company would go under

its the same company, same corperation.
www.sharis.com...

my mother 20 years ago worked as a bartender for $5.00 an hour +tips.
recently she returned to that bar and the current wage for a bartender there is now $5.00 and hour+ tips.

so u all know the gov tax's earned tips THIS way.
its 8% of total sales ( not before tax oddly enough )
so if a server does $100.00 in total sales the gov tax's them 8% of that. ($8.00)
the standerd tip rate is 15% ( = 15.00 )
so that server would take home $7.00 of her hard earned moneys
and yet these companys can justify paying them Below the min wage because of that.

We are Not talking about people who earn 40k a year here.
we are talking about people who dont even earn 25k a year.
think about 5.00 an hour.
and you tell me when theres TIME to better yourself when you have to work 80 hours a week for 2 dif company's Just to feed and house your family.
insurance for the car ? nope, teeth looking good ? nope. chances of a long life ? nope any insurance at all?? nope cant afford it. got to pay the rent 8((

anyways sorry bout the rant. long time troll 1st time poster 8)
enjoy



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Ok, so lets see here, from what I am hearing, you believe that the workers of these small businesses should make more so that their way of life is equal to that of the owner of the business. Never mind that the business owner worked his/her tail end off. Never mind that the owner/s worked their jobs, overtime, or second jobs AND went to school to get their degrees needed to do what they do. Never mind the sacrifices they made and chances they took so they could make their dreams a reality and start their own business. The workers who didnt, deserve more? The owners should make less, and scrape by so that the workers can share a similar lifestyle? GET real folks. If you dont like where you are at, DO something about it. Its a free country, if you want more money, you can have it. You just have to earn it.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
If the government wasn't going to impose taxes or intervene against strikes that hurt the country or have vagrancy laws and land ownership which prevent people from choosing to withdraw from the economy and go their own way, then at least on a strictly philosophical level I'd say lassiez faire is acceptable because the people can go another way if they don't like what the economic system offers them. But since the order of our society all but compells us to live within the system, the government then assumes the duty to protect our liberty to some certain degree since they have placed us here and bound us from certain means of resistance.


Bravo!

I have tried to say the same thing in several threads on this forum, but I don't think I've ever seen it put so well.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I just tried to clarify a point or two, including the fact that, despite Marxist predictions to the contrary, capitalism thrives and offers opportunities to those who are willing to pursue their dreams


Does it, though? Is the system we have still capitalism? Or is it some kind of capitalist/socialist hybrid? That's a matter of definition, and you could draw the line either way, but it is a fact that the economic system we have now differs sharply in several ways from the one that we had when Marx was alive.

I'll agree that Marx's predictions did not come off. He predicted that the working class would foment a revolution and seize control of the government and the means of production. That didn't happen. But he foresaw this as arising from conflict over the rights of workers, and that conflict DID occur. (And continues.)

Where he went wrong, I think, was in underestimating the potential in evolutionary reform short of revolution. The class struggle, rather than generating a wholesale revolution, has instead proved a dynamic that has driven change in our economic system away from pure capitalism. In his time, the government in capitalist countries favored capital over labor almost totally. Today, while there has been a shift in favor of capital over the past 25 years, we are still more labor-friendly in terms of government policy than was the case in the 1920s, and government policy has also come down in favor of consumers and the environment, against the privileges of capital.

These developments are often decried by purist advocates of capitalism. But I believe very strongly that if they had not taken place, if instead we had tried to retain a purely capitalist economy, then Marx's predictions might have come true after all.

[edit on 27-7-2006 by Two Steps Forward]



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Busymind
The current minumum wage, combined with federal, state and local taxation; makes it difficult for small businesses to prosper.


I'm going to remember that we're on a conspiracy-theory board here, and wax a little paranoid.


As The Vagabond pointed out, we are all locked into the system by property law and vagrancy law. The great majority of people cannot support themselves by their own indepenent labor, in the way that our ancestors could do by homesteading a plot of land, say, or living in the wilderness and hunting their own food. For most people, that means we have to serve the interests of the capitalist class in order to survive. We are rats in a maze, and the rich and powerful control the food pellet supply.

There are still several ways out of the maze, however, ways to achieve freedom from service to the capitalists. One of those is to start a successful small business. For most small businesspeople, getting rich isn't really the point (although it would be nice); the point is to be one's own boss. But it's hard to do this. And I would say that it's made deliberately hard, because if it were too easy to do it, then more people would, and fewer people would be in service to the rich and powerful, and they wouldn't like that.

If the government wanted to encourage small business success, then what it could is to shift the tax burden away from small business and onto big business. If the minimum wage were cut, that would also lower business costs of course, BUT it would also reduce consumer demand, and so hurt all businesses, large and small. Better to have a compensating shift in the tax burden, which has no downside for small business at all. Wouldn't you agree?

While I'm on the subject, I may as well discuss the other exits from the rat-maze. One of those is to become a professional. A professional is a worker whose skills are so high, and who is paid so much as a result, that he can walk away from a job any time he wants and feel no serious pain. Doctors and lawyers, for example. Often, professionals go into business for themselves, but even when they do not, they are still free from the maze.

The other way is for traditionally working-class jobs to be paid so much that they, too, achieve a certain degree of freedom. This happened in America in the years from 1946 until the mid-1970s. After that, the good working-class jobs began to disappear, and this, too, was largely the result of a shift in government policy. But for a while, labor became comfortable and confident enough that it ceased to be under the thumb of capital.

As long as big money calls the shots so strongly for our elected officials, the exits from the rat-maze will continue to become more and more difficult to use. We do need to reverse this, if possible. But let's put the emphasis where the problem really lies: upward from small business, not downward. To make it easier for small business to succeed, give them money (or breaks in costs, same thing) that's taken from the fat cats -- not from minimum-wage workers.

[edit on 27-7-2006 by Two Steps Forward]



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   

by Two Steps Forward:
But it's hard to do this (have one's own business). And I would say that it's made deliberately hard...."


REPLY: Boy, is THAT the truth. The world is run by "C" students; the "A" students, rather than actually work for a living, go into politics, and make it as difficult as possible for the rest of us.


If the government wanted to encourage small business success, then what it could is to shift the tax burden away from small business and onto big business.


REPLY: Big business, and/or "The Rich" already pay the majority of the taxes, although in a way they don't. The taxes, and the cost of compliance with the tax codes (all 9 million words of them) are folded into the cost of goods and services. This still could be considered as them "paying" those taxes since it represents lower net profits no matter how you look at it.

Have you done any research into the "Fair Tax"? [link] www.fairtax.org...
I believe you'd find it very interesting. No federal taxes for business; no federal deductions from your paycheck; no taxes on "used" items, etc.

I've been going through it for over two years; our economy would expode upwards and make us competative again in the world marketplace (the EU would go berserk about it). Many outsourced jobs would return.... heck, America might even be able to start making our own tennis shows and textiles again. 8^) Its "revenue nuetral", so those in the lower income brackets (read this as "the poor") would get rebates up to the poverty level, etc.
I'd like you to check it out and give me your opinion. (You can U2U me if you wish; I might as well start a PTS thread on the issue.


Is the system we have still capitalism? Or is it some kind of capitalist/socialist hybrid?


REPLY: Unfortunately that is exactly the case. It pretty much began with Roosevelt, and it will never go away; too many people rely on the "nanny state", having the belief that by their very existance they are "owed" something from the workrest of us do.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
For most taxpayers, the TOTAL taxes paid, including BOTH income and Social Security Taxes, increased under the Reagan administration.


I remember paying income taxes during the '80s. The worker who wanted to itemize in order to pay less taxes found that deductions were being taken away or having a "floor" applied where he would have to pay over a certain amount before being allowed to deduct. News at the time told of "tax cuts" without telling of "deduction cuts", too.

Also, at that time, people who worked for tips (and may not have formerly declared exactly how much tips were earned) now had to either declare the amount or pay a fixed per cent. Too bad the average citizen couldn't put money off shore, as corporations started to at the time. Once again, balance taxes on the back of the lower groups.

Citizens who voted for "tax cuts" also found that they were instead paying for higher or new "fees". The parents who voted for tax cuts found themselves paying more than their tax "savings" in new fees, such as having to pay for the public school bus to school. I think people truly believed that they would somehow have more money in their pockets for discretionary spending but instead experienced merely a shift in categories from "taxes" to "fees".



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
Big business, and/or "The Rich" already pay the majority of the taxes, although in a way they don't. The taxes, and the cost of compliance with the tax codes (all 9 million words of them) are folded into the cost of goods and services.


No, that's not how pricing works in most industries.

The decision as to how to price items is based on the intersection of two graphs. One graph plots revenue per sale against price, and the other plots volume of sales against price. As price increases, revenue per sale also increases but volume of sales declines. (Push up the price, fewer people buy, but you make more from each sale. Drop the price, you make less from each sale, but you sell more.) Plot those two lines on a graph. Where they cross is considered the optimum price.

In most cases, if costs were actually passed on to the consumers, the result would be a decline in sales, so businesses are reluctant to do this. The only exception occurs when an industry operates with such a small profit margin that pricing higher than the theoretical optimum is already being done by necessity. An example is the fast food industry, and there, yes, increased taxes (or wages) would of necessity drive prices up. But in most industries, it would not.



Have you done any research into the "Fair Tax"?


I wish to point out that in ordinary and common usage of the English language, reading propaganda tracts does not constitute "research."

I have looked into the ideas, yes -- enough to know that they are nonsense.



No federal taxes for business; no federal deductions from your paycheck; no taxes on "used" items, etc.


(Sigh.)

The bottom line here: government must provide certain services, and must levy taxes for the purpose. There is no free lunch. SOMEBODY is going to have to pay.

Schemes like this generally shift the burden away from wealthy people and put it on the middle class. Claims that this will boost the economy are based on supply-side economic theory, which history (and I include in that economic history long before the term "supply-side" was ever coined -- the 1980s were NOT the first time this idea was tried) shows to be incorrect.

The economy would not "explode upwards." We are able to know this, because the "fair tax" is not new, it is a return to policies that were in place many years ago, under which the economy did the precise opposite.

You might take a look at the graph I linked earlier in regard to economic growth pre- and post-FDR. Just in case you would like a reality check.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrsdudara
Ok, so lets see here, from what I am hearing, you believe that the workers of these small businesses should make more so that their way of life is equal to that of the owner of the business. Never mind that the business owner worked his/her tail end off. Never mind that the owner/s worked their jobs, overtime, or second jobs AND went to school to get their degrees needed to do what they do. Never mind the sacrifices they made and chances they took so they could make their dreams a reality and start their own business. The workers who didnt, deserve more? The owners should make less, and scrape by so that the workers can share a similar lifestyle? GET real folks. If you dont like where you are at, DO something about it. Its a free country, if you want more money, you can have it. You just have to earn it.


no, what I am saying that if a company needs a living breething person to work 40 or more hours a day doing a job, then well, they should pay a wage that keeps them living and breething!!

if after that point, the owner can buy a yatch, take month long cruises to the bahamas, buy million dollar shower curtains, whatever, I have no gripes!! But, if one of his employees is relying on our tax money in order to survive, then I have a gripe!!! and it's not with the poor person workiing his tailend off but just not making because the wages are so low they couldn't keep a monkey alive and taken care of!!!

hey here's an idea...

how about we increase the minimum wage, but exempt companies from it under certain circumstances. they can hire somene at below that wage, as long as they get a signed statement from the person that he will not seek public assistance of any kind while he is working for that wage (housewives might consider this, since well, they have another income they are relying on, the husband). if at any time, the person finds he cannot make it on that salary (the husband splits on the wife, or whatever), he is to inform his boss within 7 days, giving him the opportunitity to offer more money, otherwise, the person is eligible for help, as long as he is actively seeking a job at the minimum wage and his job search can be verified. by all public assistance, I mean, welfare, hud, heap, food stamps, medicaid, child care, ect......

[edit on 27-7-2006 by dawnstar]



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
no, what I am saying that if a company needs a living breething person to work 40 or more hours a day doing a job, then well, they should pay a wage that keeps them living and breething!!




Very true. My husband is a business owner. He makes good darn sure that his employees are taken care of. He also would rather pay a man $18 an hour to work if he works his butt off rather than pay a man $9 for doing a half ass job. Unfortuantly, there are quite a few people out there who do not work their hardest therefore the company needs to pay more employees. I just dont think many people understand the money that is needed to pay a person. It is not just $8 an hour. They pay about as much in taxes on that check as the person has to on top of that 8 bucks, and insurance for having the employees, and unemployment just incase that employee ever needs to draw it. On top of that my husbands company like many others out there pay health insurance, and gives bonuses. There are a lot of companies who pay less because they provide insurance, and there are others who pay more because they do not provide insurance. I could go on and on but I will stop there. If a business owner is sitting back making big bucks living it up while his employees suffer then he is wrong. However, of all the business owners I know, I personally have never met one.

As for giving tax breaks to small companies, that is the one good thing I can say about Bush. He has done a lot to give small business a break. My husbands company has been able to do very well because of the breaks he gives.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   

by Dawnstar:

But, if one of his employees is relying on our tax money in order to survive, then I have a gripe!!! and it's not with the poor person workiing his tailend off but just not making (it) because the wages are so low they couldn't keep a monkey alive and taken care of!!!


REPLY:Those who lived in the previous generation (WW2) would slap the crap out of most posters complaining here. You act like there's bread lines all over America.
A friend said to me : " what we need is another depression to make many in this "ME" generation realize how good they have it."
I'd have to agree pertaining to the current younger generation, who "feel" they should start a job at $10 to $12 per hour, all the while not knowing a damn thing about life, or have any particular knowledge WORTH $12 per hour.

Did you not read my real-world post about what happened at Lowes (and other) stores?

Did you not check the thread-specific link pertaining to job loss and the minimum wage (in Australia)? Free market economics are what they are, now matter how you "feel" about the issue. The numbers prove the case.
Far too many people "feel" instead of "think."



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   
I'm a generation after than one.....I remember cokes costing 5 cents a bottle, and order of french fries, good one, made fresh from real potatoes, 25 cents. a loaf of bread, I think was around 10 cents. a buck would buy you a bag of candy that would last for days!!! $10 dollars bought more back then.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   
And if we're going to bring up the WWII generation, we should also recognize that most of them would radically disagree with laissez-faire capitalism. That generation had the highest membership in socialist third parties of any American generation before or since, voted overwhelmingly for Roosevelt (even while often considering him too conservative), and, when in political power, created the minimum wage (along with Medicare, Medicaid, AFDC, and the Environmental Protection Agency). And while it's certainly true that they experienced far greater economic hardship than we must endure today, it is also true that they were responsible for unionizing America's industries and so rectifying that injustice, and so I doubt they would be lacking in sympathy for the plight of the working class.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
I'm a generation after than one.....I remember cokes costing 5 cents a bottle, and order of french fries, good one, made fresh from real potatoes, 25 cents. a loaf of bread, I think was around 10 cents. a buck would buy you a bag of candy that would last for days!!! $10 dollars bought more back then.


REPLY: Ah yes......... and what were the wages?





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join