U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-11-2018, 09:46 PM
 
1,030 posts, read 561,267 times
Reputation: 300

Advertisements

Mircea,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
EDDIE1278, the Federal minimum wage rateís net beneficial to USAís economy and society.

The federal minimum wage rate increases the purchasing powers of USAís aggregate wages. Its
less a cause and much more a victim of inflation.

The purchasing power of the federal minimum wage rate affects all other USA wage rates but its proportional effect is inversely related to jobís differing wage rates.
USAís lowest paying jobs performed by the least desirable employees, (i.e. the working poor) are, (proportional to their wage rates), the greatest beneficiaries of the federal minimum wage rate. But all USA wage rates are bolstered by the federal minimum wage rate.

Increases of the federal minimum wage rate, (similar to all prices or spending increases) contribute to the U.S. dollarís rate of inflation; but itís not among the primary causes of that inflation. The federal minimum wage rate is much less a cause and much more a victim of U.S. dollarís purchasing power. Not increasing the minimum wage does not prevent the U. S. dollarís reduction of purchasing power but our minimum and median wagesí lesser purchasing powers certainly increase our incidences and extents of poverty.

Thatís why Iím among the proponents for increasing the minimum wage and thereafter annually monitoring and when necessary updating it to remain abreast with a cost-price index number. For many years that method has retained social security retirement benefitsí purchasing powers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-11-2018, 10:26 PM
 
Location: Washington state
4,680 posts, read 2,307,327 times
Reputation: 13699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metlakatla View Post
No, I just understand sitting around whining won't get you anywhere in life and expecting a hamburger job to supply you with a good quality of life isn't realistic. Even at Bernie's $15 an hour (which the old hypocrite wouldn't even pay his own staff), it's just not enough. There's a limit to how much hamburger workers are going to be able to make, sorry.

Although I agree that someone working 40 hours per week should ideally be able to fully support themselves even if they're getting minimum wage, it isn't realistic to expect a hamburger job to supply a middle class lifestyle.

As far as education, as I already told you, there's money available, and everyone who falls within certain income guidelines qualifies for at least the basics. Just working part-time at McD's might be worth it just for the tuition assistance. If you were living in your truck and couldn't qualify, that's because you didn't meet the requirements. Plenty of people qualify who are capable of also paying rent, so I'm not sure what your problem was.



The article conveniently doesn't account for taxes. After taxes, they were probably right around the poverty threshold. It proves my point -- hamburger jobs have never been enough to support families on.

I'm sorry you can't understand the difference between dealing with reality and sitting around crying for someone to fix the world for you. You keep harping on the good old days, but they weren't so good.
Nobody takes taxes into account when they do statistics like this. Anytime you hear about someone making such and such per year, they never take taxes into consideration. You should know that.

As I said, in the "good old days", I was able to work full time at minimum wage and support myself in a one bedroom apartment. As you so joyfully point out, no one can do that today. So please don't tell me about the good old days. I lived them. They weren't the best years of my life, but they were certainly better than today.

Why I didn't qualify for financial aid is because I was an adult out on my own and the majority of the money went to kids graduating from high school. And don't tell me I had problems - believe me, I wasn't the only adult applying for financial aid who didn't get it. At that time, college was considered to be for 18 to 20 year olds. If you don't remember or don't know how the world was 40 years ago, you need a refresher in the worst way.

If you want to sit back and say nothing can change and call it reality, feel free. Martin Luther King didn't feel like that and neither did Gandhi. Neither did the those who fought in the Revolutionary War. I don't feel like that either, so I guess for now we'll just have to agree to disagree.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Oklazona Bound View Post
So the typical worker is doing at least a little better than a typical worker did 40 years ago. I don't see that as being alarming.
It wouldn't be all that alarming except prices today are waaaaay higher than 40 years ago and housing, medical costs, and college tuition are right out of the ballpark. In 1989 I had an appendectomy. I was in the hospital for just a little over 24 hours and I was charged $4000. Care to guess what that would cost today? I'd say it would be lots more than just a little better than $4000.

In 1975, my apartment cost $125 a month and I was making $2 an hour. Today, federal minimum wage isn't even four times what it was then. But a one bedroom apartment is well over four times $125 a month. Yeah, life would be a breeze for workers doing at least a little better than 40 years ago, if only we weren't facing prices better suited for 2060.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2018, 10:43 PM
 
20,434 posts, read 26,564,266 times
Reputation: 13138
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser View Post
Nobody takes taxes into account when they do statistics like this. Anytime you hear about someone making such and such per year, they never take taxes into consideration. You should know that.

As I said, in the "good old days", I was able to work full time at minimum wage and support myself in a one bedroom apartment. As you so joyfully point out, no one can do that today. So please don't tell me about the good old days. I lived them. They weren't the best years of my life, but they were certainly better than today.


I guess you can't understand that my statement was specific to fast food workers buying homes and raising families on hamburger wages rather than about you and your one-bedroom apartment. I've clarified that several times, but I guess you're too busy looking for something to "debate" than actually read and comprehend was was written.

I'm aware that minimum wage workers were able to rent little apartments back in the good old days.

I'm not sure what you're on about with your comments about taxes. I merely pointed out that after taxes were taken out, the typical minimum wage worker with a family of three back in the 1960s was living below the federal poverty level.

You seem determined to blame everyone else for your failures. Oh, and Ghandi was a wife-beating populist who also sexually abused his nieces. You should pick your heroes more carefully.

Last edited by Metlakatla; 08-11-2018 at 10:55 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2018, 10:47 PM
 
20,434 posts, read 26,564,266 times
Reputation: 13138
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser View Post
Why I didn't qualify for financial aid is because I was an adult out on my own and the majority of the money went to kids graduating from high school. And don't tell me I had problems - believe me, I wasn't the only adult applying for financial aid who didn't get it. At that time, college was considered to be for 18 to 20 year olds. If you don't remember or don't know how the world was 40 years ago, you need a refresher in the worst way.
That's odd. I did my first year at a community college, and were plenty of people over the age of 20 who were there on financial aid, many of them were middle aged and older. There must have been some other reason they denied you; I'm sure it had nothing to do with your age, but it seems to make a convenient excuse.

Last edited by Metlakatla; 08-11-2018 at 11:59 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2018, 12:39 AM
 
1,030 posts, read 561,267 times
Reputation: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Why did you cherry-pick 1968?

That's disingenuous.

You have also displayed a gross ignorance of "Inflation."

When Monetary Inflation occurs, wages automatically rise at the same rate of Monetary Inflation.

The problem is you're not experiencing Monetary Inflation, you're experiencing Demand-pull Inflation.

The function of Demand-pull Inflation is to prevent the depletion, overuse or over-consumption of resources, goods and services.

If your Dollar doesn't go as far as it used to go, that's a good thing, because resources, goods and services are being protected from depletion, overuse or over-consumption.

Increasing wages to match the rate of Demand-pull Inflation is incredibly stupid, as it only accelerates the depletion, overuse or over-consumption of resources, goods and services, causing prices to rise at an even faster rate.

It's a vicious cycle, and there's no possible way to win.

Instead of increasing wages, you should focus on increasing Supply to match or exceed Demand, which is the only thing that will halt Demand-pull Inflation.

The problem is increasing Supply is not always possible. Even when it is, there may be delays in the Supply chain for up to 5 years (or more), and the rate of increase of Supply is often less than the rate of increase of Demand, so prices still rise.

Worse than that, the cost to increase Supply may result in losses, so you have to wait until prices are high enough to make a profit.

Your theory is all wrong and has been repeatedly debunked.

You incorrectly assume that $1 of imports generates $1 of GDP, which is a patently false claim. $1 of imports generates 10 to 100 times the amount in GDP, which makes your economy better off, not worse off.
...
Mircea, all prices aren't elastic; those prices that are elastic, are not all equally elastic, and prices do not all automatically or readily adjust themselves to inflationary forces. This is similarly true for wages.

I'm among those that would have the minimum rate pegged to a cost-price index number and annually monitored. You contend that would be economically detrimental. We believe not following that practice has and will continue to be more economically detrimental.

You and I agree that it's desirable to increase our nation's GDP and numbers of jobs. That's why I'm among the advocates for Wikipedia's Import Certificate policy.

I contend exports do generate additional GDP. I'm not opposed to Imports, but I'm certainly opposed to annual trade deficits which are always net detrimental to their nation's economy. Your contention that imports contribute to increasing their nation's GDP is nonsense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2018, 04:28 AM
 
2,252 posts, read 1,393,549 times
Reputation: 4903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Mircea, all prices aren't elastic; those prices that are elastic, are not all equally elastic, and prices do not all automatically or readily adjust themselves to inflationary forces. This is similarly true for wages.

I'm among those that would have the minimum rate pegged to a cost-price index number and annually monitored. You contend that would be economically detrimental. We believe not following that practice has and will continue to be more economically detrimental.

You and I agree that it's desirable to increase our nation's GDP and numbers of jobs. That's why I'm among the advocates for Wikipedia's Import Certificate policy.

I contend exports do generate additional GDP. I'm not opposed to Imports, but I'm certainly opposed to annual trade deficits which are always net detrimental to their nation's economy. Your contention that imports contribute to increasing their nation's GDP is nonsense.
You are?!?!? Please explain this brilliant idea! I donít think youíve ever brought this up before! We have to know more!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2018, 08:14 AM
 
Location: 500 miles from home
27,282 posts, read 15,058,088 times
Reputation: 20870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metlakatla View Post
Not true. Manufacturing jobs were skilled positions.

Nonetheless, I never said a burger maker "shouldn't" make decent wages. I said that they don't make decent wages and that anyone with half a brain pursues a different career path unless they want to spend their lives living in poverty.

Of course, if burger makers in independent mom and pop shops were paid today's equivalent of manufacturing jobs of yesterday, their employers would either go out of business or reduce/eliminate as many employees as possible. McDonald's and the other bigs ones might be able to hold on, but then that's all there would be.
SOME manufacturing jobs were skilled positions. In the town where I grew up - I had friends working in the local factory putting widgets together. Not a whole lotta skill there - that's why they went to work there.

YET -they were able to at least live on their salaries.

Those jobs all went overseas. Hence my comment about burger makers. Certainly not a job that I would choose - but as another poster pointed out - we are no longer a manufacturing economy; we are a service economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2018, 08:17 AM
 
1,030 posts, read 561,267 times
Reputation: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatsright19 View Post
You are?!?!? Please explain this brilliant idea! I don’t think you’ve ever brought this up before! We have to know more!
Thatsright19. Google: Wikipedia + Import Certificates . That's the title of the Wikipedia article.

refer to the threads,
Trade balance's economic importance.
and
A trade deficit indicates the nation consumed more than it produced.

A trade deficit indicates the nation consumed more than it produced. Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP and thus to their numbers of jobs.

I'm among the proponents of the improved trade policy concept as described in Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article. It is superior to free trade, tariffs, or any other trade policy we're aware of.

Exporters of USA goods may REQUEST, (they are not required) to have the value of their export shipments assessed and they agree to pay the federal fee rate based upon that assessed value. When their goods leave the USA, They're issued TRANSFERABLE Import Certificates with a face value equal to the assessed value of their export shipment.

Importers are REQUIRED to surrender certificates of sufficient face value to cover the assessed value of their import shipment. The surrendered certificates are then canceled.

Federal assessment guidelines and fees are updated annually. The fees by law are set to only to defray all federal direct expenditures due to this policy.

Regardless of the additional cost to USA purchasers of imports, (i.e. regardless of how small of a price increase), this policy will significantly reduce, (if not entirely eliminate) USA's chronic annual trade deficits of goods.

Increased prices of imports that are beyond the costs attributable to the federal fees, (i.e. costs attributable to markets' behaviors), serve as indirect but effective price subsidy of USA's exported goods.

Goods assessment values are reduced due to eliminating the approximate values of specifically listed scarce or precious mineral materials integral to the goods.

Refer to Wikipedia's article entitled “Import Certificates”.

Last edited by Supposn; 08-12-2018 at 09:18 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2018, 10:11 AM
 
372 posts, read 78,066 times
Reputation: 816
I believe a great deal has to do with the stock market. Since a large part of a product's cost is labor, how do you suppose Amazon shareholders (for instance) would react to a $15 minimum wage? Just about everything from the quality of a product to where and how it's made is related to the profit is produces - and that is not necessarily a bad thing at all. People love to talk about corporate profits (and energy company profits too, for that matter), but just about everyone, from the 1% er investor to the 401k plan shareholder to the employees, themselves has a vested interest in profitable industry.


Still, it is alarming how the cost of living has risen far above pay. Back in the 70's, when I was 19, I had my first apartment - a 2 bedroom townhouse in a newer building. I was a dishwasher in a restaurant and worked part time washing dishes at lunch in another - yet I was able to support myself and keep my car on the road - though admittedly it was a very frugal life. But, what do you want when you're a dishwasher?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2018, 11:07 AM
 
Location: Inland FL
1,007 posts, read 573,837 times
Reputation: 1807
Real wages have been flat for lower and middle class families since 1973 but risen among the rich since 1980s.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top