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

reply to post by Phage

The term "steady downturn" is not used. You made it up. The downturn lasted 8 months. It was a small blip during a steady increase in the economy.

i disagree but we've already established that you didn't read it, so, moving along ...

Is the majority of the population striking?

do they need to ?

Is the majority of the population below the poverty level?

according to published stats from 2010, no ... but, it is steadily on the rise from 12% to 15% and climbing.

so, would it really kill the corporatocracy to enable that 15% to be above the poverty level ??

i mean geez, we're only talking about 15% here, not half the country.

there are less ppl with health insurance coverage and that warranted Presidential attention

regarding your link -> given that the poverty threshold is absurd, yes, current minimum wage does elevate an individual above that threshold, but again, you are assuming that threshold is an acceptable one.

given that the threshold is exceptionally low and unchanged for decades, current minimum wage should nearly double just to equal a reasonable poverty threshold, let alone elevate one above it.

But you were talking about it like it means something

well, considering you've based your entire argument around it, why wouldn't it mean something ??

are you suggesting it (poverty threshold) should be changed ?

reply to post by Phage


Actually none of what you say has any factor in anything about MacDonald workers. Like some have said they cut there hours so they dont have to give them any of those benefits, its not even a 40 a hour job so they dont have to give them any benifits or obama care. Nothing you say has anything to do with anything, but ah heres the crescendo.

I'm sure the shareholders would be real happy with that kind of thinking.

What do you have shares in Mcdonals and dont like the dip you would take. Besides yes even construction/ditch diggers get paid 16$ or 20$ and they mostly just sit around, not only that but sometimes they just dig up a section of the highway and fill it up again just so that they would meet the quota and have something to do. I know quite a few people in the construction biz, it takes skills but not something you literally cant learn in a few weeks if not days. In fact I know a few in the military who are pissed that now that Obama cut back on there funds they cant go built then tear down then build back up useless projects over and over again, the good ol day even in the military are slowly draining. the guy said thats all they did, and a majority of it was written off as well. Funny how unionizing a trade such as ditch digging can make people get 15$ or way more which but a few years ago was considered non skill work, we even had people going on about it constantly as well.

But ya what are you on some island somewhere and own stocks and shares in the McDonald and other various businesses, is that why your so interested and come into these threads. That or work for them or the more lucrative shareholders? would explain why like clockwork certain people come into these threads on mass each and every time with there predictable banter and twisting of facts, its there job I suppose, there livelihoods are at stake, and its obvious what this is about.

This is not about the costs of the meal increasing or anything, its about shareholders and everybody else on the higher echelons losing profits, in fact the cost would not increase because of the business itself but for the fact that they need to fill in the gap in the corporate scheme and shareholders pockets. Which is just another reason why these sort of schemes never last and why the government is practically printing money out of thin air to support the whole thing. That's why you see these tiny burger business or foreign restaurants having not problem maintaining it and making and raking in the $$, while the larger chains have to be maintained by government incentives and loopholes, and just straight up throwing money at them so they can function or else the whole deck of cards will fall down.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Aazadan

 

I don't understand. Why was its purchasing power at a minimum just before an increase? But it doesn't really matter because I have been using $1/hr anyway.

Purchasing power was at a minimum because inflation happens year after year. A wage of 75 cents per hour in 1950 goes further than that same wage in 1955. In 1956 the wage increased to a dollar. I've been using a rate of 75 cents. If you would like to use rates from the middle of the decade that's fine with me. By 1956 the work week had declined from 44 hours to 40 hours, at a rate of $1/hour that's an income of $2080. Subtract 20% for income taxes, which can be found here, and lets take out another 4% for state and local and that's $1581 to spend. Now fortunately those housing prices I used earlier are still representative of 1956 prices.

The cost of a home loan increased but not by much. We'll use your 4.75% from earlier and stick with the same home and amount down, lest you accuse me of moving the goalposts again. Not surprisingly we come up with $43.21/mo in rent or $518.52 annually, which is 24.93% of income and we're even back to the $7000 home (which is a $60,000 home by todays standards).

Next comes tuition. U Penn which we already know is above average had increased their tuition to $850 in 1956. If we use the proposed 6 year plan that's $569.50 in tuition.

My food prices were from all over the decade so the proposed budget should still be reasonable. As a refresher here's the proposed monthly grocery list, this time with years of food prices included.

1950 3 pounds cheese $1.35
1950 3 pounds turkey $1.47
1952 3 loaves of bread $.36
1952 1 jar peanut butter $.29
1957 1 jar jelly $.19
1957 8 cans of soup $.80
1950 12 eggs .49
1952 6 cans pork & beans $.50
1957 6 frozen chicken pie $1.14
1950 5 pounds potatoes $.35
1950 1 box of crackers $.32
1952 1 pound pork roast $.39
1950 1 pound frozen vegetables $.48

For the sake of argument, lets just say all of those are 1950's prices. web.bryant.edu... there's another list of food prices. We can see there that food prices rose an average of 12.49% throughout the decade. Since 1956 is 60% of the way through that decade we'll take 60% of that value and add 7.494% to the above grocery prices. Since it came to $8.13 we can inflate that up to $8.74. Multiplied throughout the year that comes to $104.88 in groceries.

So post taxes we have an income of $1581. Subtract 518.52 for rent, 104.88 for groceries, and 569.50 for tuition and we're left with $388.10 for utilities and entertainment.

I disagree. You have not shown that a minimum wage earner had a lot of disposable income.

18.65% of gross still available to spend after accounting for a mortgage payment, food, and tuition. Some of that would obviously need to goto bills, but that still leaves a little bit for entertainment. If you cut college tuition that leaves a lot for discretionary spending.

You base this on what? The average person did not want to buy their own home with a white picket fence around it? They'd rather just eat high on the hog? I grew up in the 1950's. That ain't the way it was.

Your experience is also subjective to your perceptions that aren't necessarily representative of reality. Since you mentioned minimum wage in the 60's and 70's I'm guessing you weren't old enough to really understand what was going on around you in the 50's. Even if you were though, one persons experience doesn't outweigh historical data showing what it was like in general.

Most everyone did better. Minimum wage did not provide a standard of living which allowed home ownership, a college education, and some extra.

Except I've shown now for both 1950 and 1956 that it did.

Edit: Since we have $388 to play with (minus some for utilities), lets throw in health insurance. According to Forbes the all inclusive cost of health care per capita was $131 in 1958. That's a little bit past 1956, but we'll go with it. That $131 covered insurance, outpatient costs, medications, and everything else.

So now we have a minimum wage job in 1956 providing a house, out of pocket college tuition, and health insurance. Sounds pretty good to me for a starting wage. The companies providing this wage were quite profitable as well.

reply to post by Honor93

i disagree but we've already established that you didn't read it, so, moving along ...

Incorrect. I read it. I understand why you want to move along. You made up the statement that there was a "steady downturn".

according to published stats from 2010, no ... but, it is steadily on the rise from 12% to 15% and climbing.

Actually in November of 2012 it was at 16%, about what it was in 1993. In 1959 it was over 20%. But it isn't people being underpaid or that there was extreme inflation that was the largest reason for the increase during the recession. It was people being unemployed. People lost their jobs. Raising the minimum wage and doubling burger joint worker's salaries isn't going to get more people working.

well, considering you've based your entire argument around it, why wouldn't it mean something ??

Considering that just about everyone else, including you, has been basing their argument around it should.

reply to post by Aazadan

Except I've shown now for both 1950 and 1956 that it did.

Except that your food bill of $2 dollars a week is absurd. As the statistics for 1955 show.

But, Ok. I agree that at $1 single person could have pulled it off but not as comfortably as you think.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by filledcup

 

work the laws of supply and demand for skills to fill positions.

It's called "unskilled" for a reason. The pay is low for a reason.
There is a huge supply of unskilled workers (or workers with skills which are not marketable).

edit on 8/31/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I have stopped posting, because this is a circular arguement....it only leads back to where it started....it is the epitome of insanity.

Think about your frivolous use of the word "unskilled" for just a fraction of a second phage.

A cashier and a bank teller literally have the exact same job, but in your reasoning ( obviously flawed IMHO) the teller is somehow "skilled" and the cashier is "unskilled"

They take the exact same amount of skill, one makes a decent middle class salary, one makes substantially less.

Exact same job....... exact same skill set.........different outcome.

I can name many examples of this exact concept, none of these high wage jobs require much more actual "skill" than any other, in fact I would say that construction takes many times the skill of being born a billionaires kid, yet......

The entire system is broken from top to bottom, there is not a meritocracy in play here, there is cronyism, it is the "buddy" system, where a complete idiot with the right parents, or the right friends has a much better chance of success. than even the most "skilled".

A system where company profits reflect individual pay would solve all of this.

If a company making over 10 million in profits were required to pay at least half of net in pay, the workers would always make good money, there would always be disposable income, the market would always grow.

The employees, knowing that the harder and more efficient their work, the better the company does, the more money they would make, would reinforce this cycle endlessly.

Those at the top would still get to be rich beyond belief, actually they would make more in the long run, as their customer bases would explode, as all workers everywhere would be able to afford to purchase goods and services.

Though it would cause the mega corps to also grow even bigger, and more powerful, as most would flock to them, as their pay would be higher than a mom and pop.

It would though, eliminate welfare for the most part, keep the maximum amount of people in the financial loop, and stop the market from running away from and leaving the poor behind.

The distance between the top and the bottom for any large corp would never be more than a few steps away, as instead of them making more and keeping it all, they would be required to keep their workers in the loop, and thus, there wouldnt be an ever increasing gap in financial disperity.

The customer base would grow at the same speed as the market, keeping the entire economy in sink at all times.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Aazadan

 

Except I've shown now for both 1950 and 1956 that it did.

Except that your food bill of $2 dollars a week is absurd. As the statistics for 1955 show.

Yet I've given a grocery list, with prices from that time period. Those statistics show the average food expenditures, however the average was well above the minimum. People can subsist on cans of soup, pork & beans, and other budget foods. People do it all the time, I've done it for over a decade now, and will likely be doing it for several more years as the jobs for my supposedly in demand skill set simply aren't available. Eating cheap food is what people at lower incomes do. Someone doing it for a few years isn't absurd at all.

It was a time period where businesses weren't exploitative and we had good economic policies, it made everyone wealthy and as such people could spend significantly more on food. The fact that it was done before without harmful consequences proves it could be done again.

But, Ok. I agree that at $1 single person could have pulled it off but not as comfortably as you think.

Great. So you concede the point that minimum wage didn't always provide the bare necessities (and it doesn't even do that now). People could actually own property on minimum wage. They could attend college on minimum wage. They could afford health care on minimum wage. Good to know. So rather than defend the current policies that minimum wage should be just a step above slave labor, why not demand policies that return us to a time where minimum wage was a living wage? You grew up in that era, it shouldn't be that bad and it's been proven it can be done.

reply to post by oblvion

A cashier and a bank teller literally have the exact same job, but in your reasoning ( obviously flawed IMHO) the teller is somehow "skilled" and the cashier is "unskilled"

Not exactly the same job. Bank tellers handle quite of few different types of transactions as opposed to pushing a button on a touch screen. But how much does a teller make? Between $13.94 and $6.25 apparently (based on 40/52). There must be a reason for that range in pay.
www.indeed.com...

I can name many examples of this exact concept, none of these high wage jobs require much more actual "skill" than any other, in fact I would say that construction takes many times the skill of being born a billionaires kid, yet......

Yeah, well. We can't pick our parents can we. Around these parts a skilled non-union carpenter makes around $25-$35/hr. That's not too bad, is it?

If a company making over 10 million in profits were required to pay at least half of net in pay, the workers would always make good money, there would always be disposable income, the market would always grow.

No. If the company were "required" to devote half their profits to salaries they would hire more people at the same rate. Hiring more people isn't a bad thing. The government telling companies how to spend their money is a bad thing.

The employees, knowing that the harder and more efficient their work, the better the company does, the more money they would make, would reinforce this cycle endlessly.

Yes. Most companies give raises based both on their profits and the productivity of each employee. Why should the slacker benefit over someone who actually does work harder? McDonalds encourages their crew members to move up the ranks but they don't just give people raises for showing up for work.


I do agree that executives in large corporations make obscene amounts of money. I don't agree that redistributing that money to the entry level workers would benefit anyone in the long run.

Originally posted by oblvion
A system where company profits reflect individual pay would solve all of this.

If a company making over 10 million in profits were required to pay at least half of net in pay, the workers would always make good money, there would always be disposable income, the market would always grow.

The employees, knowing that the harder and more efficient their work, the better the company does, the more money they would make, would reinforce this cycle endlessly.

I've been throwing a system around in my head. I don't have all the details worked out, but it borrows from the Japanese model of capitalism. In Japan they consider it dishonorable/shameful to earn excess wealth at the expense of the workers lower on the totem pole. I don't believe they have any significantly binding laws on the matter, but the tradition is that CEO's are only allowed to earn X% of the wage (I don't know the value, the companies I've looked at have been around 30x the lowest employee wage... this would mean for a CEO to make 5 million their lowest paid employee is making 167,000 if working the same number of hours) of their lowest paid employee.

This creates an automatically sliding pay scale between those at the top and those at the bottom. In order for those at the top to earn more money, those at the bottom must also see increases to their wages, with everyone else falling inbetween.

I don't know what a fair rate is, I'll leave that for people more intelligent than myself. But I think I like the system in principal. Depending on the details, that's legislation I would support when it comes to a solution to the minimum wage/living wage issue since it doesn't say a position must be paid x wage (other than minimum) and doesn't mandate how much profit must be spent on each employee.

reply to post by Aazadan

Eating cheap food is what people at lower incomes do.

And according to the statistics single people earning a bit more than minimum wage were spending an average $12 dollars a week, maybe some were spending $2 in which case others were spending a lot more than $12. And couples earning less than $2,000 were spending $25.

It was a time period where businesses weren't exploitative and we had good economic policies, it made everyone wealthy and as such people could spend significantly more on food.

No. Nice shiney thought there, but no.
Unemployment:
1954: 5.5%
1955: 4.4%
1958: 6.8% (that mini-recession)
1961: 6.7%

Poverty rate 1960: 22%

No, Not everyone was wealthy.

So you concede the point that minimum wage didn't always provide the bare necessities (and it doesn't even do that now).

It does for a single person who can live frugally. Won't buy a house. Won't get you through college. But the bare necessities, yes.

Good to know. So rather than defend the current policies that minimum wage should be just a step above slave labor, why not demand policies that return us to a time where minimum wage was a living wage? You grew up in that era, it shouldn't be that bad and it's been proven it can be done.

It is a living wage, for a single person. 30% above the poverty level. At $15/hour, what these guys are demanding, it would be 175%.

reply to post by Phage

i believe i mentioned contractors, not carpenters.
(if not, my error, my apology)

however, we were discussing mgt vs labor and carpenters are not mgt, whereas contractors are.

So you can't provide anything that says a degree is required to obtain a license?

never said any such thing.
here's your "proof" ... www.cslb.ca.gov...

Evaluation of college transcripts to help verify acceptable educational credit (in addition to military experience and training)

now, i never said all 50 states have the same or even similar requirements, however, of all the contractors i know personally, they ALL have at least a Associates in Business, some have more, some have experience on their side and were licensed before such requirements became standard.

now where's yours ??????????????

I have backed up my statements with evidence.

so, a misrepresented report in a magazine is 'evidence' these days, eh ???
interesting.

well then, clearly you aren't a 'contractor' either
so, since you don't know what a "permit" is, then obviously, there is no point discussing this subject with you, is there ??

btw, why would a 'hiring' person (HR) know anything about the process of getting the job (permitting) for which they are hiring ??

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Honor93

 

don't know where this figure came from but it's more bogus than a $3 bill

I provided the source.

then i missed it.
either way, it's a bunch of bogus bullpuckey.

reply to post by Honor93

to anyone who read this, i can't change it now but it should read ...

there are less ppl without health insurance coverage and that warranted Presidential attention

less than 10% of the population is without said insurance coverage and that was important enough to spend 3 yrs developing a 'plan' ... so, where's the 'plan' for the poverty stricken ??

reply to post by Honor93

i believe i mentioned contractors, not carpenters.
(if not, my error, my apology)

Accepted. A contractors license does not require a degree either.

never said any such thing.

Sorry. I must have misunderstood when you said this:

no license, no legitimate work. (no degree = no license)

here's your "proof" ... www.cslb.ca.gov...

Um. The CSLB helps vets find work based on their education, yes.
But a degree is not required to be a licensed contractor in California.

To qualify to become a licensed contractor you must be 18 years of age or older and
have the experience and skills necessary to manage the daily activities of a construction
business, including field supervision. Or, you must be represented by someone
else with the necessary experience and skills, who serves as your qualifying individual.
The contractor or other person who will act as the qualifying individual must have had,
within the ten years immediately before the filing of the application, at least four full
years of experience at a journey level, or as a foreman, supervisor, or contractor in the
classification for which he or she is applying. The experience claimed on the application must be verifiable and individuals who have knowledge of the experience must
certify the accuracy of the experience information provided by the applicant (page 3
of the application)

www.cslb.ca.gov...

so, a misrepresented report in a magazine is 'evidence' these days, eh ???

How was it misreprented? Were the statistics incorrect? Were all of the statistics I linked incorrect?

btw, why would a 'hiring' person (HR) know anything about the process of getting the job (permitting) for which they are hiring ??

Perhaps because if a "permit" were required the person applying for work would have to present it to the potential employer. There is no carpenter "permit".

oblvion

A cashier and a bank teller literally have the exact same job, but in your reasoning ( obviously flawed IMHO) the teller is somehow "skilled" and the cashier is "unskilled"

They take the exact same amount of skill, one makes a decent middle class salary, one makes substantially less.

Exact same job....... exact same skill set.........different outcome.

You couldn't be more wrong.

I worked as a bank teller and I've been a cashier and they are NOTHING alike. To say so is just silly and shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

A bank teller deals with large sums of money and other peoples money is in their hands! They are responsible for people's accounts including business accounts. They also set up accounts and also have to do various other tasks like savings bonds, cashier's checks and other similar things. Sorry but when I was a cashier at two different grocery stores and at various retail shops I NEVER handled that kind of money nor were people's money in my hands! I found my cashier jobs to be much easier and less stressful.

A bank teller requires experience a cashier does not. You can't even get a job as a bank teller without years of cash handling experience. Yet as a cashier you dont' need experience, they train you. The training i received as a teller was far more advanced than the cashier training. We spent a week just on counterfeit money. You have training for a month. I have never had training for a month as a cashier.

So no they are not the same.

As a teller I made 10 bucks an hour and this was over 10yrs ago. As a cashier I made minimum wage which varied depending on when I worked. When I first started working minimum wage was like 3.75!

reply to post by Phage

excuse you but the downturn didn't take place until after 1957, so, you're reaching again.

even so, the downturn and increased unemployment (7.4% btw) didn't force employees or generations into the poor house.

Raising the minimum wage and doubling burger joint worker's salaries isn't going to get more people working.

when did i ever say it would ??
if anything, maybe it would shudder these behemoth, corporate rapists right out of business

Considering that just about everyone else, including you, has been basing their argument around it should.

now why would i base my argument around something i believe is misrepresented ???
that makes -0- sense whatsoever.

i've stated more than once that the minimum wage is too low and certainly should be raised ... moving the goalposts again are ya ?

reply to post by Phage

i gave you a star for this post because, finally, you're right.
it wasn't easy but it was DOABLE and that's the point.

and, $8-$10 per month food bill was quite reasonable given what that $8-10 would purchase and how well ppl shopped compounded with the generosity found in most neighborhoods, churches and family.

reply to post by Honor93

excuse you but the downturn didn't take place until after 1957, so, you're reaching again.

even so, the downturn and increased unemployment (7.4% btw) didn't force employees or generations into the poor house.

What are you talking about? I said that in 1959 the poverty rate was over 20%.
www.census.gov...

That "downturn" only lasted 8 months and was nowhere near as severe as the current one.

when did i ever say it would ??

You didn't. It was an observation directed at the fact that the recent increased poverty rate is due to unemployment, not low wages.

now why would i base my argument around something i believe is misrepresented ???

I don't know, but you've been talking about the poverty level.
For example:

you cannot claim the 'standard' was near the poverty line cause that simply isn't true.

by 1958, those at or below poverty had declined 47%.

so, would it really kill the corporatocracy to enable that 15% to be above the poverty level ??

i've stated more than once that the minimum wage is too low and certainly should be raised ... moving the goalposts again are ya ?

Which goalposts would that be?

reply to post by Phage

A contractors license does not require a degree either.

i provided a link that specifically says otherwise, feel free to disregard that which doesn't support your argument

so, trades such as air conditioning, cosmotology, auto mechanics, contracting don't require a degree or licensing ... is that what you think ?
and, none of those contractors have to get a license or permit BEFORE performing their tasks ??
in which part of the world do you reside ?????

ummm, no .. that is only one specialized function of the CSLB.
one which happens to address your claim, specifically.

one, which requires review of college transcripts to verify education requirements for the license requested.

like i said, not all of the 50 states have the same requirements and discussing this aspect any further IS derailing the topic so please stop.

most of them, especially in that magazine article.
others i believe i stated i may have missed, yet, you haven't been willing to repost them, so i'm guessing they must be irrelevant.

i never said there was a 'carpenter permit', however, no permit for the job (acquired by the contractor) = no work for the carpenters.
and once again, that's the point.

ETA -- here's more on those "owner built homes" that you dismissed earlier..
www.prairiemodstuff.com...
www.houzz.com...
www.capitalcentury.com...
need more ??

was just reading about Levittown (last link above) and came across this ...

"We were young, all of us who moved to Levittown, and we thought Bill Levitt was the greatest man in the world. Imagine it — $10 deposit, $90 at settlement, and you had a house of your own!"

so yeah, imagine that.
your $12/wk grocery bill is MORE THAN the downpayment on a house was, then !!!!

i'm inclined to believe your stated perceptions are seriously lacking the reality of the facts.

reply to post by Honor93

i provided a link that specifically says otherwise, feel free to disregard that which doesn't support your argument

No you didn't. I provided a quote and a link to the requirements. A degree is not among them. You didn't read it, did you?

so, trades such as air conditioning, cosmotology, auto mechanics, contracting don't require a degree or licensing ... is that what you think ?

Some of those require a license none require a degree.

i never said there was a 'carpenter permit', however, no permit for the job (acquired by the contractor) = no work for the carpenters.

I see. You were talking about a building permit. It wasn't that clear what you meant. Yes, that is required in most cases. But you don't have to be a contractor (who doesn't need a degree) to pull a building permit. www.homeadvisor.com...