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.

 

Is US Minimum Wage really $7.25?

page: 23
83
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Salamandy
 


This is too funny, people starting at minimum wage and eventually earning raises over the next few years find themselves back to (the new) minimum wage when it's raised by the government again. You are trapped in the cycle and short of finding a better paying job, you may never see a decent living working this way.

Also, have you ever notice the people who say "money isn't everything" are the people who have a lot of money?




posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by theovermensch
 


That is not true in all of America... For example, in a MOSTLY Republican state Wyoming, you can work for Pizza Hut for $15 an hour. Wyoming is one of the states that is doing great during the economic crisis.

Another thing, some people seem to think that "caring for the poor and middle classes is only what leftwing people and ideologies do"... This is NOT true, social programs don't have to be socialist...

Heck, before most of the "progressive ideas" were implemented Americans were able to pay for doctors to go to their home, they could buy houses without having to pay for years the house, and could pay cars without having to buy loans.

The wages are so low in the U.S. BECAUSE of "PROGRESS" not because there is any lack of "PROGRESS"...


edit on 10-12-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

Hey,good to hear from you. The thread was lacking in McCarthyist input
.
Be awesome if you read about socialism since you talk about it so much.

The thread is about how the US has a low minimum wage.Not socialism.

But I am glad to see you are learning - "social programs dont have to be socialist" I agree with you.

Now that we have established that maybe you and your McCarthyist friends can stop calling Obama a socialist because that is just silly and an insult to socialists and you all know it. Or maybe you dont since you dont understand socialism.

Im glad you are learning though. Social programs do not have to be socialist



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 




Text social programs don't have to be socialist...



Thanks again hey.
Thats awesome.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by KJV1611
 





Text And you can thank Liberal Democrats and their union ties for that. Keeping the poor as a slave voting class.


I agree. That is what the democrats do. Please dont think this thread is in favour of Democrats They do keep the poor as voting class. The people need to turn their backs on both parties of the duopoly and form a new party. A party of the people and for the people.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by theovermensch
 


American politicians know that a person, especially if they have a family, can not live off of $7.25 an hour. The reason it is so low is because the power hungry, elitist politicians (Progressive Democrats) know that a minimum wage worker will need various forms of Government assistance in order to make ends meet, such as WIC, food stamps, Gov't housing, etc... They keep their position of power by enslaving poor people with the minimum wage, coupled with the entitlement/welfare programs. Democrats will tell poor people that the mean old Republicans want to take their food stamps away and that their kids will starve, so ignorant poor people actually believe this and continue to vote for Progressive Democrats, thereby perpetuating the problem generation after generation. If Politicians really cared about poor people they would make the minimum wage $15 an hour, but they can't do that because then poor people wouldn't be as poor, which means that they wouldn't need the government programs that the power hungry politicans control.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by wingsfan
because in america it is demonized. they brainwashed the feeble populace to root for the wealthy.


Kinda like how you're rooting for a millionaire wide receiver with your avatar?



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by theovermensch
 


American politicians know that a person, especially if they have a family, can not live off of $7.25 an hour. The reason it is so low is because the power hungry, elitist politicians (Progressive Democrats) know that a minimum wage worker will need various forms of Government assistance in order to make ends meet, such as WIC, food stamps, Gov't housing, etc... They keep their position of power by enslaving poor people with the minimum wage, coupled with the entitlement/welfare programs. Democrats will tell poor people that the mean old Republicans want to take their food stamps away and that their kids will starve, so ignorant poor people actually believe this and continue to vote for Progressive Democrats, thereby perpetuating the problem generation after generation. If Politicians really cared about poor people they would make the minimum wage $15 an hour, but they can't do that because then poor people wouldn't be as poor, which means that they wouldn't need the government programs that the power hungry politicans control.


Chuck Norris Approved.
edit on 10-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ripcontrol
 


So what you are saying here is that minimum wagers are slaves to the current economy and there is nothing that can be done?

Well this just sucks



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by theovermensch
 



Here in Australia it is $15.51 an hour.In Australia a 16 year old gets $7.34.


Why would a teenager earn half of the minimum wage? Just curious. Are employers over there allowed to discriminate pay based on age? I don't understand that.

To answer your question, 'minimum wage' is not the same as 'living wage.' It was never intended to be.


The U.S. has a lower wage for young workers under the age of 20 also. Which is part of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act minimum wage exemptions.
The first job I had I made $4.25 an hour at the age of 16 for the first 90 days.
Then I made $6.25, which is around 85% of our minimum wage, as a full time student working part time.
It was not until I worked full time and out of school that I earned $7.25 at that job.
And this was only 8 years ago... I'm pretty the FLSA is still the same or close to the same as it was then.
There are a lot of exemptions to the minimum wage law in the U.S.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by metaldemon2000
 


You quote statistics and get them wrong ? Comeon .. Ontario is HIGHER than Alberta minimum wage so don't be saying "Ontario is soooo hard pressed". You are whiners from Ontario and seem not to be above not checking FACTS before you whine ..

Alberta $9.40 Alberta Employment and Immigration
BC $9.50 B.C. Ministry of Labour
Manitoba $10.00 Manitoba Labour and Immigration
New Brunswick $9.50 New Brunswick Employment Standards
Newfoundland $10.00 Labour Relations Agency
NWT $10.00 Education, Culture and Employment
Nova Scotia $10.00 Labour and Advanced Education
Nunavut $11.00
Ontario $10.25 Ministry of Labour
PEI $9.60 Community Services, Seniors and Labour
Quebec $9.65 Commission des normes du travail
Saskatchewan $9.50 Saskatchewan Labour Standards
Yukon $9.00



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
You are spot-on, and we should make you the first, excuse me, second ineligible president of the USA. If I were you I probably wouldn't take the job though. I know people who work full-time at a minimum-wage job, and it is next to impossible to live on, especially if one has to pay all their bills just to live, to eat, and the high-priced gas to get to their crappy job.

And yes, we SHOULD be producing WAY more here in the US. But of course the government LETS US manufacturers produce overseas and then import the products. This should not be legal imo, or at least regulated more productively.

Of course a business will go overseas because they can save lots of money. Plus, the influx of millions of immigrants from South and Central America, as well as the Middle-East, and a plethora of other Asian countries does nothing to help the situation.

I know this isn't the main reason, but everyone coming to America for a better life do not realize that they are in fact ruining the country to the point that people will eventually start leaving. Maybe they will go to Mexico, lo. Na, probably Canada, IF the guards at the border don't arrest them first, eh...


edit on 12/10/11 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)


Q

posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
There seem to be a lot of people calling for a higher minimum wage. On the face of it, this makes a lot of sense. After about 10 seconds of thought, nearly anyone will say "Yeah! Great idea!".

The more clarified fact is that the manipulation of a minimum wage is a homogenizing force which works to pull anyone who has achieved marginally more than this back down toward wherever that point is set. This is irrespective of country or sociopolitical ideology.

As previous posters have mentioned, if MW=$8.50 and you're making $9, and the decision is made by TPTB to increase to MW=$9.00, what impact does that have to all involved? You're certainly not getting a $0.50 raise to match. In fact, your employer is likely concentrating heavily on how to cut another benefit or dump another operating cost directly back onto either the employee or the customer to negate this externally imposed financial burden that they had no voice, vote, or power to resist.

The endgame who-gets-what:

Government parasite: No big impact. Your EBT won't get you as much steak at the grocery, so you may have to downgrade to chopped sirloin in order to make due. It's OK though, there's just more room in the back of your Escalade on the way home. Don't worry about it, really. You don't have to work, and you've got just as much, if not more, than all the other dumb working stiffs in this list to follow. Gawd bless Amerika!

MW employee: Gets the satisfaction of earning a marginally higher wage for doing a job considered so unvalued they only pay what they legally must for a breath-and-pulse labor unit. (Perhaps if this were unregulated, the job creator might actually have to pay in proportion to the applied skill- and/or suck-level that the job truly dictates, but luckily there's an alternative minimum.) Won't actually receive any bump in purchasing power, which was the ostensible point of raising MW in the first place, but nobody ever mentions that troublesome little fact...in the end, this may in fact be reduced, due to the inverse effect of inflation.

MW+ employee: Gets hosed proportionally in relation to their wage position relative to MW (closer you are to MW, the bigger the hose diameter, and presumable length). Bears the risk of either the employer increasing job duties for same pay, receiving reduced compensation, or even losing employment if the business owner decides to pursue a larger crew of MW employees instead of a smaller MW+ crew. All of these are likely scenarios. Loses purchasing power.

Small business owner/operator: Gets the shaft, worst of all. TPTB that already skim 30% of the top of your business just arbitrarily increased your operating costs. You're not getting a cut on anything - as a matter of fact, all your incoming materials just increased in cost as your suppliers pass on the cost of their MW increase. So these winners are left in the enviable position of figuring out how to maintain profitability whilst simultaneously *somehow* compensating for increased labor costs (again, for breath-and-pulse skill level) and increased material costs. Generally, this ends up being the consumer's financial burden. (Where'd all the $0.99 double cheeseburgers go?!)

Big business: laughs all the way to the banksters. A great sucking sound is heard while the progress of the collective workforce gets cut back a notch under the guise of helping out those at the bottom end of the bell curve. Profitability and future success is ensured by periodically adjusting this value as needed, keeping the workforce fairly homogenized in a target pay range. Any workers who pipe up for a bigger slice are easily replaced with a lower-cost replacement if you can manipulate employment availability so that 20% of your workforce don't have jobs available to go to. A lot of your small-business competition will likely be wiped out. The minor cost increase can be offset by increasing consumer costs and/or government subsidies & tax breaks. The same potential for cost offsetting to employees is available to big business as well, with an even greater return on any such activity due to having a larger employee base to spread the pain to.

Government: Milks more tax revenue from the citizenry with the $troke of a pen to support the bureaucracy. All these alphabet agencies that are vitally necessary to protect the population's interests are quite expensive, after all, the vast majority not being profitable in the least. It costs a lot of money to make sure everyone gets individually fondled at the airport, not to mention FEMA camp construction costs and a million other things equally vital to the Amerikan public's well-being. Seriously, do you know what is costs to field a couple thousand protest-breaking thugs in full riot gear?

In the end, it's just another mechanism of control. The goal is to keep any given population working to the benefit of the overlords, be they religious, governmental, or corporate.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
I'd like to see the minimum wage raised, but the problem is - if I started to make $15 an hour, inflation would make it only worth $8 an hour in todays wages or $4 in 1984 money.

But one of the main things mentioned many times here...



Yes, people like to make fun. McMillan has a unique sense of style and is repetitive on the topic with uncanny enthusiasm... But damn if he doesn't speak the truth!

Why should it take 4 people crowding into a single residence apartment, or living with family (my awkward position at this point), or risking things at an over crowded shelter or out on the street in order to attempt saving up while making ends meet? Minimum wage as it is now is dishonest towards society when it comes to honest means of making income. Busting one's butt 8 hours a day should have some real and tangible reward. Suffering through it is an invitation for people to try gaming the welfare system (usually having to know the right people) or turning to crime. (Crime has a higher risk, but at least the cost benefit vs. effort involved is usually skewed in the criminal's favor.)

Minimum wage wouldn't be a problem even at todays rates if it could meet a reasonable standard of living in regards to todays cost of living. The completely broken cost of living adjustment (COLA) here in the U.S. is the real problem.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
There's no way to make abolishing the minimum wage a good thing. I do not trust businesses to set about a fair wage. There is also an argument that abolishing the minimum wage will lead to more employment. That's probably true, but that will only leave you with lots of Americans making a fraction of the pay they used to for the same work. A business is out to make money, and a big part of that is cost cutting. So the store owner has a vested interest in not paying someone well if they can get away with it.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
I am a US citizen and actually lived in Melbourne for a little while. It's true that our minimum wage is much lower in America but from what I observed, the cost of living was much more expensive in Australia (groceries at Cole's or Woolworth's cost almost double what they might in America). And if you were to factor out the effects of the recession the USD would usually be worth $1-1.65 to AUD. I don't disagree with the OP; America isn't the greatest place in the world right now, but in regards to minimum wage, most workers earn much more than it.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Sorry if this is redundant , this is off salon.com; www.salon.com...

In short it says that the six Waltons( like the number of fingers on your hand plus one.) running the WALLY world empire are worth the bottom 30% of americans ( many of whom work for wal mart at minimum wage, and are cut off at 32 hrs a week so as not to be eligible for benefits .)

I used to work at wal mart doing overnight stock and truck unloading in cape coral FL about ten years ago, and one of my pasttimes while waiting for my ride in the morning was to sit up front by the registers pull my pay stub out of my wallet and look at it while the morning crowd was filing in and out and listen to the beeping that occurred several thousand times a minute. NONSTOP as long as I'd sit there (my rides were not punctual usually) I could literally hear the waltons getting richer. Every beep is a item being rang up, made possible nearly entirely by cheap oil in one form or another. Which the u.s taxpayer pays dearly for in many different ways.

Now that was one of their stores there is about 9000 thousand of them in the u.s , next time you are in the neighborhood of one of them. Stop in and do the same sit up front and close your eyes and listen to the beeping and imagine the same frequency and amount of beeping multiplied by almost ten thousand (practically every cashier doing the check out is damn sure making the min. wage),and know the fastest way for a wally world employee to lose their job is to merely mention the most evil word known to the waltons .

UNION.

The people I worked with were for the most part great(some crazy ones and turds) and for many of them working overnight was a second job , and every time the end of the month came up I'd say about half of the folks I worked with really started sweating the bills coming up. One co-worker and a friend Steve had three jobs "one for each kid." he'd say , his youngest was always sick and he could barely keep his head above water , except for his one day a week off ,the most sleep he got was on our two fifteen minute breaks and a half an hour lunch.

Long story short , one day near the end of our first 15 minute break , I woke Steve up to go clock back in and he looked up at me with just a total look of defeat in his eyes. Holy crap did that put a fire in my belly, I turned into Wal marts overnight anarchist and rabble rouser . I was no model employee prior to that but I was one of the faster throwers(the guy in truck loading the stuff on the line to be sorted) Steve believe or not, was the fastest thrower. I was damn sure in terms of cases per hour one of their best stockers.

I was 19 years old no kids and damn cheap rent at the time and the economy was booming there at the time so I figured I'll start saying what Steve ( or many others) could not afford to, it took about two weeks of speaking nothing but the truth to lose my job.

Steve ended up leaving wal mart to work on a oil rig half the globe away from his family doing dangerous work just so his family had enough get by, when I said goodbye to him it was pretty tough emotionally and I said to him to add a little levity "Just think Steve the hardest thing a walton had to go through this year was picking the color on their fourth helicopter."
He laughed hard ,shook his head we goodbyed for the last time .



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


As usual, Misoir has provided the correct answer, and as usual I couldn't agree more.

I'd add only that as industry and jobs were being exported, it gave domestic employers the opportunity to "break" the unions.
Fire everybody, change ownership (on paper, IMO), and re-hire "lower cost" labor. (like; the people doing your work for you should be considered a "cost".)
Strike three for the working person.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir


The United States minimum wage has now risen to the same level (adjusted for 2009 $) as 1984. Between 1968 and 1990 the minimum wage had steadily dropped from its peak at just over $10 an hour at the end of Lyndon Johnson’s second term as President. Under Richard Nixon it dropped considerably from $10 to ~$7.25 then went back up under Carter fluctuating between $8-9 an hour until Ronald Reagan became President when it steadily dropped from about $8.30 to just below $6 at the end of his Presidency.

Why did the minimum wage drop so much under Ronald Reagan? He had argued, even in the debates with Carter, that the unemployment crisis was being exacerbated, especially among young blacks, by the high minimum wage which may require a higher wage being paid than the job is actually worth (according to the market) thus less jobs were available. This same general theory was tied into the policies of Neoliberalism which he brought into government, same with the policies of Thatcher (UK), and have not been abandoned by the ‘Conservatives’ since but has in fact been adopted by the ‘Third Way’, New Democrats (Clinton, Gore, Obama) and New Labour (Blair, Brown).

The late ‘70s stagflation allowed the monetarists on the Right to rise up against the Bretton Woods System of Keynesian economics which had been established to plan the economy in a way that would not permit a return of the 1930s Depression. But these policies were observed as failures, mostly due to the high spending of the Johnson and Nixon administrations (Great Society + Viet Nam War) which led Nixon to removing the Dollar from a gold backing causing mass inflation tied in with the oil crisis, this destroyed the Keynesian system. In Great Britain after the ‘Winter of Discontent’ the Dries rose up in the Tory Party to gain control under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher. This same battle was played out in the US between Reagan and Bush, Sr.

What does this have to do with the minimum wage? Well by arguing that we need jobs which were being stopped by the high minimum wage they lowered the minimum wage which allowed for new jobs to be created except this time they were from the services sector. Meanwhile the Neoliberal policies advocated the opening of borders for free-trade which encouraged industry to move abroad (also add in the high tax, regulations of the Keynesian era which had not been removed yet). Combined this allowed for more jobs to be created for lower pay and less economic security while exporting our manufacturing overseas without everyone noticing because they had jobs outside of this once crucial industry.

But the problem then became immigration which fueled the crisis. Since industry was being exported, encouraged by the ideology of free-trade, it also encouraged the importing of cheap foreign labor which undermines native labor costs. So in order for people to compete with these low-skilled, low-paid immigrants who were taking the jobs domestically, combined with them taking the jobs which had been exported, the Neoliberals were able to again sit at the table and argue that we should let minimum wage either stagnate our cut it further so that more jobs could be created.

The Neoliberals openly encouraged the mass immigration from the third world and the outsourcing of jobs to the third world all for the benefit of big business while having the right-wing cheer on free-trade (protectionism/fair trade is evil) and having the left-wing cheer on mass immigration (closed borders/quota system is evil). Big business got rich, the politicians got rich, we became poorer and sharp divisions were created in our nations based on the resentment towards immigrants who could not be assimilated. It was a win-win for the elite, a lose-lose for the workers.


edit on 12/9/2011 by Misoir because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jacobe001
 


True so thats not the free market. Thats crony capitalism. Profits are private, losses are socialized.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by cloaked4u

Originally posted by MrWendal
Something has to be done to fix our economy. My thought was that this and other issues like how rent never went down during this recession in fact it went UP. THAT IS NOT RIGHT. Rent should be 425 a month for a 1 bedroom than 850 or higher here in MN.


Read my earlier post about supply/demand.

You want to know what is interesting about this whole 'housing crisis'? Before the SHTF and the economy was good and apartment vacancy rates were very high, you know what happened? Some huge commercial developer built a gigantic apartment complex in my area. When they were building it I remember thinking "what in the hell are they building apartments for? Everyone is buying houses." In hindsight, it is obvious - they knew what was coming. You do not invest that much money in a commercial project without being damn sure you are going to be able to fill those units. Banks don't lend you the money. Two years later, that apartment complex is FULL.

That alone tells me that this whole thing is an engineered collapse meant to rob every working American blind.




edit on 10-12-2011 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join