Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's face it, twenty eight pages of disagreement add up to one valid observation, and that is that when wages are being discussed we are talking about one person's money being shared with another, period. This can't be about fairness because the definition of fair isn't a universal one. That said, it's really a matter of social conscience, the many vitriolic posts herein are proof that the prospect of living in a world inhabited by millions of impoverished humans is of little concern to many, that's the bottom line here, otherwise we'd see a lot more thought being given to participating in a quest for a more just society rather than advocating for one that openly disdains those on the bottom. We know that many nations around the globe have less of a disparity in the overall well being of it's citizens, and that alone makes me think that it is possible to close the gap in our own nation's lopsided sense of fairness.
A two parent household, the "breadwinner" wasn't always making minimum wage. There were poor people back then too!
The one earning the money (typically the man) wasn't just working 8 hours a day and calling it quits. In addition to extra hours, there were second jobs, side jobs, and doing repairs around the home, etc.
The mom was raising the kids, making meals from scratch, cleaning the house, mending clothes, darning socks (do some of you even know what that means), canning vegetables, doing laundry, making jam, making bread, baking, growing a garden, and sometimes "taking in" laundry or some other tasks to supplement the household income.
Also, there was much more family and community support for everyone.
When you consider the cost we pay today for all those things that an average family did, they were actually more like a two or three income household.
The family owned one car, one black and white TV, a radio, and most likely a record player.
Today - two cars, four TVs, "What's a radio or record player? I have an I-POD."
Eating out was a treat, not a routine.
Today - stopping for Mickey D's, a pizza, takeout, or a restaurant are frequent.
Soda/pop, chips, and "junk food" were a treat.
Today - These are a staple
There were phrases like "store bought" bread, cookies, etc. This to distinguish them from the norm of home made.
Today - We use the phrase "home made".
A family vacation was a road trip and/or camping. And camping was in a tent or a pop-up camper.
No, electricity and an outhouse was a plus.
Today - It includes hotels, expensive meals and far away destinations.
There was no such thing as credit cards. You paid cash or waited until you could.
Today - Credit card debt is out of control.
Birthdays for kids were silly hats, home made birthday cakes (with the same candles that had been used every year for the last 5 years). Gifts were a catcher's mitt, match box cars, a new doll, or a board game.
Today - Birthday parties are costing thousands of dollars. The gifts are I-pods, I-phones, I-pads, and Playstations, if they don't already have them.
People had everyday clothes and one "Sunday Best" and a couple pairs of shoes. There were no such things as designer clothes. Kids got new clothes when the old ones wouldn't fit. The old ones became hand-me-downs or eventually rags. Every kid wore hand-me-downs at some point. If they didn't have older brothers or sisters, the neighbor down the street did.
Today - Kids have $200 sneakers, designer clothes, and God forbid someone mentions used clothes from someone else.
Furniture, appliances, clothes, houses, household goods, and cars were maintained and repaired. They were not replaced every time a new style came out.
Today - TV repairmen don't even exist anymore. Everything has become disposable.
And, let's not forget the telephone. It was a phone on the wall, one per household, with a party line.
Today - Almost everyone over the age of 8 or 10 has a cell phone, complete with games and internet.
The average size of a home was 1,000 sf, 3 bedroom / 1 bath.
Today it's 2,000 sf 4/2.
The standard of living wasn't better. It was that expectations were lower.
When you look at folks today who are living a 1950's lifestyle, they are doing just fine on a minimum-wage income.
Let's face it, twenty eight pages of disagreement add up to one valid observation, and that is that when wages are being discussed we are talking about one person's money being shared with another, period. This can't be about fairness because the definition of fair isn't a universal one. That said, it's really a matter of social conscience, the many vitriolic posts herein are proof that the prospect of living in a world inhabited by millions of impoverished humans is of little concern to many, that's the bottom line here, otherwise we'd see a lot more thought being given to participating in a quest for a more just society rather than advocating for one that openly disdains those on the bottom. We know that many nations around the globe have less of a disparity in the overall well being of it's citizens, and that alone makes me think that it is possible to close the gap in our own nation's lopsided sense of fairness.
Not every nation is in the same situation though. A lot of those other countries have very different policies than the Democrats and the Republicans.
We are an overwhelmingly business nation, a nation of immigrants, an open place where people who want to work hard can join and better themselves. We want a continuous supply of labor that we can keep cost down for businesses. We want entrepreneurial immigrants to succeed in the enterprise system. We want to lead innovation. This does mean that we cannot simply become a welfare nation. That would decrease our attractiveness to immigrants, especially entrepreneurial immigrants as there would be too much barrier and protections and not enough freedom. We must incentivize productivity if we want economic output. That means you do get to keep a substantial amount of the value you create. If we become a welfare nation, we would be disincentivizing business, innovation, and immigration. We do need businesses to create stuff and to maintain a good tax base. Impoverished humans do need care. That care needs money. Money doesn't come from impoverished humans. Money has to come from some place.
A two parent household, the "breadwinner" wasn't always making minimum wage. There were poor people back then too!
The one earning the money (typically the man) wasn't just working 8 hours a day and calling it quits. In addition to extra hours, there were second jobs, side jobs, and doing repairs around the home, etc.
The mom was raising the kids, making meals from scratch, cleaning the house, mending clothes, darning socks (do some of you even know what that means), canning vegetables, doing laundry, making jam, making bread, baking, growing a garden, and sometimes "taking in" laundry or some other tasks to supplement the household income.
Also, there was much more family and community support for everyone.
When you consider the cost we pay today for all those things that an average family did, they were actually more like a two or three income household.
The family owned one car, one black and white TV, a radio, and most likely a record player.
Today - two cars, four TVs, "What's a radio or record player? I have an I-POD."
Eating out was a treat, not a routine.
Today - stopping for Mickey D's, a pizza, takeout, or a restaurant are frequent.
Soda/pop, chips, and "junk food" were a treat.
Today - These are a staple
There were phrases like "store bought" bread, cookies, etc. This to distinguish them from the norm of home made.
Today - We use the phrase "home made".
A family vacation was a road trip and/or camping. And camping was in a tent or a pop-up camper.
No, electricity and an outhouse was a plus.
Today - It includes hotels, expensive meals and far away destinations.
There was no such thing as credit cards. You paid cash or waited until you could.
Today - Credit card debt is out of control.
Birthdays for kids were silly hats, home made birthday cakes (with the same candles that had been used every year for the last 5 years). Gifts were a catcher's mitt, match box cars, a new doll, or a board game.
Today - Birthday parties are costing thousands of dollars. The gifts are I-pods, I-phones, I-pads, and Playstations, if they don't already have them.
People had everyday clothes and one "Sunday Best" and a couple pairs of shoes. There were no such things as designer clothes. Kids got new clothes when the old ones wouldn't fit. The old ones became hand-me-downs or eventually rags. Every kid wore hand-me-downs at some point. If they didn't have older brothers or sisters, the neighbor down the street did.
Today - Kids have $200 sneakers, designer clothes, and God forbid someone mentions used clothes from someone else.
Furniture, appliances, clothes, houses, household goods, and cars were maintained and repaired. They were not replaced every time a new style came out.
Today - TV repairmen don't even exist anymore. Everything has become disposable.
And, let's not forget the telephone. It was a phone on the wall, one per household, with a party line.
Today - Almost everyone over the age of 8 or 10 has a cell phone, complete with games and internet.
The average size of a home was 1,000 sf, 3 bedroom / 1 bath.
Today it's 2,000 sf 4/2.
The standard of living wasn't better. It was that expectations were lower.
Spot on.
One important piece of info you forgot on your list. Between 1950 - 1970 having kids out of wedlock & divorce were pretty uncommon (less so toward the end of the period). Those 2 things are major financial killers.
Not every nation is in the same situation though. A lot of those other countries have very different policies than the Democrats and the Republicans.
We are an overwhelmingly business nation, a nation of immigrants, an open place where people who want to work hard can join and better themselves. We want a continuous supply of labor that we can keep cost down for businesses. We want entrepreneurial immigrants to succeed in the enterprise system. We want to lead innovation. This does mean that we cannot simply become a welfare nation. That would decrease our attractiveness to immigrants, especially entrepreneurial immigrants as there would be too much barrier and protections and not enough freedom. We must incentivize productivity if we want economic output. That means you do get to keep a substantial amount of the value you create. If we become a welfare nation, we would be disincentivizing business, innovation, and immigration. We do need businesses to create stuff and to maintain a good tax base. Impoverished humans do need care. That care needs money. Money doesn't come from impoverished humans. Money has to come from some place.
For the most part, the money comes from fiduciaries -- institutions, foundations, and pools of capital not linked to individuals; these are the entities which actually control much of our national wealth. They are subject to the shifting winds of politics like all the rest of us -- just less directly.
This can't be about fairness because the definition of fair isn't a universal one.
Prophetic.
Quote:
...the many vitriolic posts herein are proof that the prospect of living in a world
inhabited by millions of (unemployed) humans is of little concern to many...
Look more DEEPLY into why we have all these impoverished.
Quote:
otherwise we'd see a lot more thought being given to participating in a quest for a more
just society...
One bridge at a time... OK?
Lets see a lot more thought (and action) being given to re-balancing employment levels
so that MOST can actually find work and MOST can be paid far better than now.
With MOST actually employed and MOST of them actually earning enough to pay taxes...
that fairness and justice stuff will tend to follow suit.
Getting there (or back to there) won't be easy.
It's still worth the effort.
Look more DEEPLY into why we have all these impoverished.
One bridge at a time... OK?
Lets see a lot more thought (and action) being given to re-balancing employment levels
so that MOST can actually find work and MOST can be paid far better than now.
With MOST actually employed and MOST of them actually earning enough to pay taxes...
that fairness and justice stuff will tend to follow suit.
Getting there (or back to there) won't be easy.
It's still worth the effort.
The problem here is that many of the jobs "created" or "offered" by a post-industrial economy aren't going to be received very enthusiastically by those conditioned to expect too much. "Lowering of expectations", which was the rejoinder Margaret Thatcher used to throw back at her hardest (and most pig-headed) critics, isn't likely to play well.
The problem here is that many of the jobs "created" or "offered" by a post-industrial economy
aren't going to be received very enthusiastically by those conditioned to expect too much.
That sounds like a personality disorder... not an economic problem.
The deeper issue is the large RAW NUMBER of minimally qualified.
The educated and capable can easily reconcile themselves to whatever the reality
might be at any given time... if they can earn enough.
The biggest roadblock to getting higher wage rates TODAY (whether at the minimum/livable end
or far above that) is simply in having too much competition for those positions.
The problem is solvable, and even without Malthusian or dystopian means, if we choose to act.
Last edited by MrRational; 03-03-2014 at 04:05 PM..
The problem here is that many of the jobs "created" or "offered" by a post-industrial economy aren't going to be received very enthusiastically by those conditioned to expect too much. "Lowering of expectations", which was the rejoinder Margaret Thatcher used to throw back at her hardest (and most pig-headed) critics, isn't likely to play well.
In the long-term, the message will be received decently. That may mean after EUC, after draining savings, after draining 401K, but eventually folks will come to grips with dealing with reality.
Look more DEEPLY into why we have all these impoverished.
One bridge at a time... OK?
Lets see a lot more thought (and action) being given to re-balancing employment levels
so that MOST can actually find work and MOST can be paid far better than now.
With MOST actually employed and MOST of them actually earning enough to pay taxes...
that fairness and justice stuff will tend to follow suit.
Getting there (or back to there) won't be easy.
It's still worth the effort.
Assuming that poverty is a direct consequence of unemployment seems a bit disingenuous given the fact of an unlimited amount of commentary here on CD regarding the dire situation of those earning the lowest wages. Most of the poverty around the globe is spread among those who serve in various industries ranging from steel production in Korea to the textile mills of many Asian nations, burger joints in the US, not to mention the numerous low paying jobs in the American retail sector.
Yes I know that many here seem to regard the American poor as being in an almost enviable position when compared to the sick and dying in many impoverished foreign nations but the truth of our growing poverty here in America is that those so stricken are fast becoming non participants in the larger scheme of producer/consumer relationships. To want to argue about the causes of poverty usually leads to a ton of political commentary leaning toward party politics, but most of us know that the causes of poverty are many and sometimes not always so easily understood by a majority of Americans. As I've pointed out in many earlier posts, the causes of poverty have been studied in minute detail by the world's prestigious universities, those studies and their conclusions can be readily accessed on the web, but that takes time and effort, something American's have come to see as a waste of both.
The notion that profit is a holy residual of capital investment, and that labor's contribution is secondary and therefore diminished is simply the result of hundreds of years of errant thinking brought about by those in the investment busine$$. Posturing capital as the primary ingredient in all human endeavors puts money above (labor) people, but that is one of the principles of modern day economics being taught to and parrotted by the youth in our educational institutions.
Many posters here who work and are poor have come to resent the welfare recipient but not those on wall street that have contributed greatly to their financial condition, why is this thinking so common among the working poor? Is it because they are being told who to hold responsible for their plight by those who own and control media? Is it because media and it's controllers are able to sway public opinion in a way that postures the robbers as those on the bottom and the providers as the ones on top? Sure it is. And this is why poverty and wages are not always connected, poverty is now characterized as a personal problem and that thinking affords a great hiding blind for those who take the Lion's share of profit while pitting worker against worker around the globe, and the working poor against the worse off poor..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
