Fast-food walkout U.S. workers strike in several cities to call attention to low wages.

reply to post by Honor93

a magazine ????

Yes. A magazine article which used current statistics.

besides, prior to 1955, the 'poverty line' was estimated by FOOD CONSUMPTION not income earned

Did you read the article?

actually, you keep vascilating between individual and family ... it does make a difference.

No. I've been talking about a family all along. Or trying to. It was Aazadan who shifted the goalpost to a single person.

oh, so now you're arguing the median FAMILY income whereas this thread is discussing 'individual' incomes ... moving the goal posts again, are ya ??

No. You claimed that there was a decrease in the economy during the 1950's. There wasn't.

families are not striking, individuals are.

Right. Individuals who are complaining about not being able to support their families because a job they accepted does not pay enough to do so.

and individuals are the same ones who bought houses, cars and college educations, then and now.

Not on minimum wage they didn't. The ones who bought houses and college educations were earning more than minimum wage.

reply to post by Phage


This is the most ridiculous argument.

What are you guys talking about?

Shouldn't the conversation be weather or not people on the bottom deserve to at least have the basic necessities covered, otherwise how else are they going to survive?

You SHOULD be able to cover the basics no matter what or how low on totem pole you are period.

The rest of what is going on in this thread is bullcrap.

reply to post by onequestion


What people fail to understand is what would happen if the masses on the bottom can no longer feed and house themselves. It does not matter if you make a ton of money because the epic crash will touch everyone. So as you sit high on the chair made of salt remember the water will come when the masses at the bottom are put out because of inflation.




How much longer will that take? 1 year maybe 2. Look around even a blind man can see this coming. And it will bring the entire country, dare I say world to it's knees.

reply to post by onequestion

The rest of what is going on in this thread is bullcrap.

I agree that it has little to do with the plight of the burger workers. I didn't bring up how wonderful it was to work for the minimum wage in the 1950's but I can't help but point out a fallacious argument even if it is irrelevant.

Ok. You win. Double the wages of entry level employees so they can be comfortable and make a career out of working in the kitchen of a burger joint. Double the wages of every employee who is below the poverty level. You might not like what you find. You might figure it out if you ever have employees of your own.

reply to post by Phage

Congress isn't "management" and $22,500 is not $31,200.

yes, i said $15/hr was a wee bit high but not by much.

Congress IS government management and continually voting themselves raises

Chrysler...yes, an unheard of salary. But he was president of the company, that's more of an executive position

actually, no, he wasn't, not yet anyway.
he was "management" of a division when he drew that salary.

yahoo ???
dude, you're slipping

productivity vs compensation
www.bls.gov...

oh, btw, management at Taco Bell averages ... $57,000 or $27/hr
www.glassdoor.com...

reply to post by onequestion


The problem is defining the basics. Does that mean a roof over your head, electricity, and a land line, necessary food and water or does that mean a smart phone, maxed out cable, flashy car, entertainment, smoking, alcohol etc??

There are basics and then there are basics. I am always amazed at going by a section 8 housing area and seeing the flashy cars, cell phones, drugs, laptops, tablets, video games all these kids play etc.. You know and I know that there are contributing factors to people's poverty.

There is a problem with lack of good jobs which is playing into the sense of futility many are feeling who have done the right things. They look around and see people living off the welfare system making more money than those putting in 8 hours a day say as teachers in New York! How is that right? Then there are those who are working their butts off in large companies watching friends getting laid off just before they qualify for retirement and being told to pick up the slack while the bosses get HUGE bonuses!

The middle class is being destroyed on purpose.

reply to post by Honor93

he was "management" of a division when he drew that salary.

I was wrong about the timing. The source you provided is a bit vague about it but it says this about the million dollar salary:

A few months after leaving GM, the manager who could work miracles was recruited to be executive vice president of Willys-Overland, an auto company that was near bankruptcy.

www.referenceforbusiness.com...
Hired as VP (not mangement) to save the company.

productivity vs compensation

Yes. Technology has increased productivity, as your source says. What's your point?

Increases in labor productivity—the most commonly used productivity measure—reflect investments in capital equipment and information technology, and the hiring of more highly skilled workers.

www.bls.gov...

reply to post by Phage

Did you read the article?

the article in the magazine ??
only to where it said ... "families & individuals making less than $3000" ... nice that they use the same threshold for both groups ... families & individuals.

after that, well, it bombed.

besides, families were reportedly of "3" members, 2 of whom presumably worked and earned a minimum of $1500 EACH.

so, which FAMILIES are striking again ??

singles employed, singles striking, singles making demands ... where do you figure 'families' in this scenario ??

You claimed that there was a decrease in the economy during the 1950's. There wasn't

no, i didn't.
the government statistic did ... read it for yourself.

the economy was on a steady downturn ... their words, not mine.

same, same
the same individuals who were working to support a family then are generally the same individuals trying to do it now. (head of households are still individuals, ya know ?)

The ones who bought houses and college educations were earning more than minimum wage.

not always and more often than not, those who weren't earning more than minimum, didn't buy houses, they built their own.

reply to post by Phage

i don't know what you're reaching for there but we were discussing a MANAGER from 35 years BEFORE 1955. Not a VP who earned $1 million.
surely, Chrysler was making more than $15/hr in 1920, as the manager of the Buick division.
deflect much ??

technology ya say ????
well, who do you suppose created that technology ??
not the working stiffs or students i'd suppose

nah, students with the barest of essentials, working out of their garage couldn't possibly have developed Microsoft, right ??

and just where do you think those 'investments' came from ??

reply to post by Honor93

the government statistic did ... read it for yourself.

I did. I posted the statistics. But ok, here's what you posted:

Between 1947 and 1958, aggregate personal income of families and unrelated individuals rose from $185 Billion to $338 Billion.

More money overall.

This rise was accompanied by a marked increase in average family income and by a gradual upward shift of families on the income scale. The average income of families increased by two-thirds (from $3000 to $5100) during this period

More family income.

At the same time, the proportion in the lowest income groups (under $3000) was cut in half (from 49% in 1947 to 24% in 1958)

Fewer people in the lowest income groups, from 49% of the people to 24% of the people.

and the proportion in the highest income groups ($10,000 and over) had tripled.

More people in highest income groups.

And somehow you think that indicates a downturn in the economy? You have a weird idea about the economy.

the same individuals who were working to support a family then are generally the same individuals trying to do it now. (head of households are still individuals, ya know ?)

Yes. I know. In the 1950's is was no picnic raising a family if you were earning the minimum wage. And you sure weren't going to buy a house, go to college, and have something left over.

not always and more often than not, those who weren't earning more than minimum, didn't buy houses, they built their own.

I'd like to see the statistics on that. I think probably they would be renting. But the claim that one could obtain a mortgage and buy a house when earning minimum wage.

reply to post by Honor93

i don't know what you're reaching for there but we were discussing a MANAGER from 35 years BEFORE 1955. Not a VP who earned $1 million.

You're the one who quoted the million dollar figure.

Chrysler was making more than $15/hr in 1920, as the manager of the Buick division.
deflect much ??

Maybe. I'm sure he was one of the top earners. What's your point? How does it relate to minimum wage?

nah, students with the barest of essentials, working out of their garage couldn't possibly have developed Microsoft, right ??

Wrong. A very good example of what happens when someone wants use their resources and abilities to make something of themselves. Do you think Jobs was whining about getting paid minimum wage for flipping burgers? Was Gates demanding that his wages be doubled?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Aazadan

 

But you have fun shifting the goalposts don't you? Yes if one works harder then can improve their position. That's a well established principle. But lets just pay them more so they don't have to work so hard. Ok?

I haven't shifted the goalposts at all. My statement still stands. One could own a home on minimum wage. One could also goto college on minimum wage. You're the one that said I implied doing both at the same time, which wasn't what I meant. As it turns out however, money would be tight but that was STILL possible, even you have shown it's possible with your numbers. While this was possible corporations were still making nice profits and capitalists were well rewarded for taking the risk of starting a business. This was all possible, I have shown it's possible. There is no reason that cannot be done today.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Aazadan

For a total of $1402.92 on an income of $1716. I'm not sure where you're getting $1728 from. $8.13/week. Your grocery list is light. Very light. You'd have a hard time sticking with that budget.

No. That's 8.13 per month. I based it off of my current grocery list. It's the current equilavent of ramen noodles (which I have lived on at times... when I was homeless choosing to pay tuition rather than rent I at times had food budgets of $5 for a month, if you're interested that rations out to half a pack of ramen per day, a little more if I was hungry and could make it to a free church dinner one day that week). A sandwich and a 10 cent can of soup is sufficient food for a day. I could inflate it if i start adding things like steak but hey... it's minimum wage, they don't get things like that, atleast not while also going to college

reply to post by Phage

dude, i posted a whole paragraph and a link, not one sentence

from the same link ... www2.census.gov...
(again, can't copy/paste so you'll have to read it for yourself)

the section is titled
"Slight Rise in Family INcome in 1958 Despite Business Downturn"
(a whole section, clearly you didn't read it)

oh, and it also says ... "the median income for all families was estimated at $5100 in 1958, about $120 or 2% above the 1957 average."

"the slight rise in average family income in 1958, despite increased unemployment and a shorter workweek, is attributable, in part, to wage-rate increases in most industries"
(not investment or technology)

then of course, it goes on to mention ...
"the average income of families headed by persons who were unemployed during the survey week (1959) was estimated at about $3500"

hmmmm, unemployed and still above the 'poverty line' of $3000, imagine that ??

reply to post by Phage

In the 1950's is was no picnic raising a family if you were earning the minimum wage.

never said it was but it was certainly doable.

And you sure weren't going to buy a house, go to college, and have something left over.

often, they built a house, enhanced their trade skills via apprenticeships and had plenty left over or we wouldn't have had a 'baby boom' in the 60s.

and that claim has been proven over and over again.
that you refuse to accept it is no problem of ours.

reply to post by Phage

so ?? he was still a manager at Buick (making well over minimum wage) and his $1 million salary as VP was still 35 YEARS earlier.

when did Jobs flip burgers ??
ummm, regarding Gates, yep, many times over, contract after contract after contract ... surely this isn't news to you ?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Honor93

 

No. I've been talking about a family all along. Or trying to. It was Aazadan who shifted the goalpost to a single person.

I've been referring to an individual ever since I got in the thread, I've never claimed family. One could support a family on minimum wage by working a trade, and eventually even being promoted beyond minimum wage (one would hope). It could be done on a single family income. You wouldn't be going to college, but you could still afford a roof and by this metric you would be able to afford a car too.

Not on minimum wage they didn't. The ones who bought houses and college educations were earning more than minimum wage.

That may or may not be true, however we have shown by both of our numbers that someone on minimum wage COULD afford those things. For all I know even the low skill jobs didn't pay minimum wage at that point because employers were more responsible. It's not really relevant however.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Food, a place to stay and electricity. Its simple.

How you going to go to school or learn a trade working 70 hours a week to survive? Give me a break guys.

By the way, the construction industry is really hard to get into nowadays. Even an apprenticeship for electrician or welding takes years to get into, i know because ive been trying.

reply to post by Honor93

"Slight Rise in Family INcome in 1958 Despite Business Downturn"

Ah. The "Einsenhower recession". It lasted less than a year and was a small blip in the overall post-war boom.
The economy was booming. That's why it was called the post-war boom.

NO, it was on a steady downturn
(as provided in previous links you clearly didn't bother to read)

I don't see any steady downturn there. Do you?

hmmmm, unemployed and still above the 'poverty line' of $3000, imagine that ??

Yes. Imagine that. The head of the household wasn't working but others in the family were.

reply to post by Honor93

enhanced their trade skills via apprenticeships and had plenty left over or we wouldn't have had a 'baby boom' in the 60s.

Yes. They became skilled and no longer had to work for minimum wage.

reply to post by Aazadan

I've been referring to an individual ever since I got in the thread, I've never claimed family.

I know. And that's why what you were talking about isn't relevant. This whole thing is about people complaining about raising their families on the mininum wage. You moved the goalpost to a single person.

That may or may not be true, however we have shown by both of our numbers that someone on minimum wage COULD afford those things.

No. The numbers don't show that. Your monthly grocery bill of $8 was ridiculously low. I showed you the actual figures here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...