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.
Wage is determined by supply and demand, not what we believe our work is worth.
And I am sure you believe that hedge fund traders deserve to make billions as well. Shrug, and if we automate more of work away...what exactly do you believe will be the result? I mean, lets talk about the reality on the ground, and what it actually does to our economics, not how you believe it should work. Reality-paying people on the low end more will help our entire economy grow faster. Its the prisoners dilemma of capitalism.
Quote:
$0.75 was the minimum wage in 1950, about $ 7.46 in current dollars. Median household income was $ 5000 or about $50,000 in 2015. About 87% of families were intact, with a mother and father present. Teen pregnancy rates were higher than they are today which usually resulted in a "shot gun wedding". This may explain the subsequent soaring divorce rates.
And 20 years later? $1.60, $9.25 adjusted for inflation. Thats kind of my point, until 1970 the gains were shared. Today? $7.25. Hmmmmmm
Even more importantly though is that VERY few people made minimum wage compared to today.
Quote:
Unions peaked in the 50's, given there was no global competition.
And a pretty aggressive campaign against them.
Quote:
A substantially large percentage of the adult population were Veterans who took advantage of the new GI Bill.
Veterans were able to attend college and buy a home with zero down. Developers bought up cheap land and suburbia was created.
And today? Yeah.
Quote:
The average size of a home was 983 square feet and family sizes were larger and without air conditioning. By the mid 50's about 35% of households had one TV. Clothing, furniture, appliances and assorted electronics were substantially more costly than they are now, as a percentage of income. People would replace cuffs and collars on shirts, mend socks and share party phone lines.
Yup, and then technology came along and allowed us to improve all of those things. Try checking out the cost per kwh of power.
Know where costs have gone up? Rent, healthcare, etc. Family sizes were larger because....they could afford to have larger families. The average cost to have a child today is over $240K. I've had 8 kids, I can testify as to the expense of children.
Quote:
Immigrants typically shared housing with other immigrants while they saved for their own housing, preferably an apartment building.
Nothing new. Hey is your idea we should all live like poor immigrants?
Quote:
About 35% of the adult population were overweight/ obese compared to 70%, today. A diagnosis of Cancer or Heart disease was usually fatal.
Yup, turns out cheap food is often unhealthy. And then theres the argument that we should be poorer because of technology....sigh.
Quote:
Most adults read at a 5th grade level. The earliest international comparisons of student test scores in the 60's had the U.S. in the middle of the pack. What has changed are the countries at the top.
So given that we are even MORE educated we should be doing even better right? Nope.
Quote:
Personal savings rates were 11%
Consumer debt had not become a way of life for the masses.
Yeah, and the cost of living and surviving wasn't as high. Rent is a killer.
Quote:
Federal income taxes consumed a greater portion of gross income. No such thing as an Earned Income Tax Credit for low wage earners with children.
No worries, the rich have become massively richer.....maybe we're taxing the wrong people.
Quote:
Dining out was reserved for a special occasion. Vacations for the middle class trended local car trips.
No worries, more people are intending to dine out less. (surveys). Vacations? Bwahahaha. Seriously, most of us arent taking one. The only people that can are either doing better then the middle class, or dirt poor.
Quote:
Despite the " good times" 20% of the people lived in dire poverty, in rural and urban areas and probably did not realize the Great Depression had ended. Most were black or Appelachian whites and/ or elderly. There were 2 recessions during the 50's and a housing bubble in many geographic areas.
And?
Quote:
Reduce your standard of living to the middle class lifestyle of the 50's and it's likely median household income would be enough to enable you to build wealth. Give up your AC, phones, TVs, cable, dishes, Internet, coffees, tats, lottery, dining out/ carry out. Reduce the size of your living space. Share living space with other families and save for a place of your own. Make do with one car or use public transportation.
Give up technology. You know-the thing we should ALL benefit from. LOL. So not only do you want the wealth from productivity gains to go to the top, now you are arguing that the wealth from technological developments to ALSO go to the top. Yeah. Thats actually a recipe to slow our economy down even more.
Quote:
And perhaps most importantly, cease to engage in unprotected sex until such time that you and your partner are able to take full financial responsibility for the consequences.
Lets ask Japan how well its working out to be decreasing in population. Cause thats your suggestion here.
So much nonsense that you probably think sounds so reasonable.
A lot of people on City-Data, and in America in general, are completely against welfare of all kinds, including for people with disabilities and dependent children whose parents are too poor.
What do you suggest be done with them? Throw them all in privatized jails? Let them beg on the street (but then again, you want to criminalize begging?) Force them to live on "reservations"?
I just don't see a conservative solution to poverty. You could just tell them to "go get a job", but in 2015 those jobs don't even exist! And people cannot survive on pennies an hour. It sounds to me like people who want to abolish welfare are basically asking for mass death and starvation, just like the Irish potato famine. I think there is a Malthusian agenda here.
This whole post is based on a false premise. Many Americans might not like cash assistance programs like TANF, but most Americans are not against "welfare of all kinds."
This whole post is based on a false premise. Many Americans might not like cash assistance programs like TANF, but most Americans are not against "welfare of all kinds."
I didn't say "most" but a lot definitely are. Even the ones who think the programs should be there for people who "legitimately" need them, tend to be suspect of anyone on welfare and assume they must be lying or cheating until proven otherwise.
I mean, lets talk about the reality on the ground, and what it actually does to our economics, not how you believe it should work.
You should practice what you preach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Reality-paying people on the low end more will help our entire economy grow faster. Its the prisoners dilemma of capitalism.
It has nothing to do with Capitalism, which is a Property Theory and not an Economic System. It has nothing to do with Economic Systems like Free Markets or Command Markets or Traditional Markets, either, and that is reality.
Not to mention your theory fails.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
And 20 years later? $1.60, $9.25 adjusted for inflation.
Why adjusted for Inflation? Which kind of Inflation?
State the Economic Law, Theory, Theorem or Corollary proving that Wages have to keep pace with Inflation of any kind.
Otherwise, you're just using the typical Is/Ought Fallacy.
What was that you said?
Oh, yeah.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
I mean, lets talk about the reality on the ground, and what it actually does to our economics, not how you believe it should work.
Oh, and let's not forget that Cost-of-Living matters....you said so yourself.
If people are getting "price out" and cannot afford cable or cell-phones or internet or certain foods or dining out or entertainment or anything else, then that is what is supposed to happen, and that is reality, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Thats kind of my point, until 1970 the gains were shared.
Gains were not shared, and you're not even considering other factors, such as savings rates.
Can't build Wealth if you don't save money and then use that money to acquire the assets necessary to build Wealth.
And don't forget about Skill Sets.
Your government says you have more than 800 different Skill Sets, but that wasn't always so, either.
I could go on and on about other differences, too, but I don't see the point of wasting time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Even more importantly though is that VERY few people made minimum wage compared to today.
Prove it. You should be able to do that using US government data.
You're not going to have trouble finding those websites, too, are you?
Grounding realities...
Mircea
Last edited by Ibginnie; 08-12-2015 at 05:16 PM..
Reason: copyright violation
A lot of people on City-Data, and in America in general, are completely against welfare of all kinds, including for people with disabilities and dependent children whose parents are too poor.
What do you suggest be done with them? Throw them all in privatized jails? Let them beg on the street (but then again, you want to criminalize begging?) Force them to live on "reservations"?
I just don't see a conservative solution to poverty. You could just tell them to "go get a job", but in 2015 those jobs don't even exist! And people cannot survive on pennies an hour. It sounds to me like people who want to abolish welfare are basically asking for mass death and starvation, just like the Irish potato famine. I think there is a Malthusian agenda here.
When you take away the freebies, people suddenly find the time to get up and look for work. They take on more than one job, they get roommates, they cut their expenses, and they realize that they don't get to have everything that they want. They may not like it, oh well, the rest of us don't like having to work long, hard hours either, (well, unless they have their dream job which not a lot of people have), and the excuse making stops.
A lot of people on City-Data, and in America in general, are completely against welfare of all kinds, including for people with disabilities and dependent children whose parents are too poor.
What do you suggest be done with them? Throw them all in privatized jails? Let them beg on the street (but then again, you want to criminalize begging?) Force them to live on "reservations"?
I just don't see a conservative solution to poverty. You could just tell them to "go get a job", but in 2015 those jobs don't even exist! And people cannot survive on pennies an hour. It sounds to me like people who want to abolish welfare are basically asking for mass death and starvation, just like the Irish potato famine. I think there is a Malthusian agenda here.
We didn't always have all these social services, but somehow people survived without them. Imagine that.
A lot of people on City-Data, and in America in general, are completely against welfare of all kinds, including for people with disabilities and dependent children whose parents are too poor.
What do you suggest be done with them? Throw them all in privatized jails? Let them beg on the street (but then again, you want to criminalize begging?) Force them to live on "reservations"?
I just don't see a conservative solution to poverty. You could just tell them to "go get a job", but in 2015 those jobs don't even exist! And people cannot survive on pennies an hour. It sounds to me like people who want to abolish welfare are basically asking for mass death and starvation, just like the Irish potato famine. I think there is a Malthusian agenda here.
bolded is too extreme.
Only the internet trolls believe all social programs should be abolished. Talk to a level headed conservative in real life, you will find out that there is no agenda here.
In all fairness, we DO need an unemployment system and a bare-bones social safety net for a limit time period. You simply cannot do away with all of this. when people are desperate for lower-tier necessities, check Maslow chart, things can get out of control. Social problems can get much worse.
p.s. I grew up with a lot of financial savvy individuals, I learned from investment bankers when I was very very young. I made my shares of mistakes, and I can tell you that One of the more surprising ways people can jump the income ladder has to do with savings. (although saving is NOT the only requirement to stay wealthy.)
There are some interesting books in the market
Up and Out of Poverty: The Social Marketing Solution By Navy R Lee
GET YOURSELF OUT OF POVERTY: HOW TO BUILD, MAINTAIN AND PROTECT YOUR WEALTH
by Martin Mbuvi
Bush had 8 years to get rid of welfare. He didn't. Yet Republicans waited until Obummer to take presidency to complain. hmmm
Seems to me all Republicans do is complain. Even when Bush was president, they complained. Not about Bush, but Clinton for all 8 years of Bush presidency.
A lot of people on City-Data, and in America in general, are completely against welfare of all kinds, including for people with disabilities and dependent children whose parents are too poor.
What do you suggest be done with them? Throw them all in privatized jails? Let them beg on the street (but then again, you want to criminalize begging?) Force them to live on "reservations"?
I just don't see a conservative solution to poverty. You could just tell them to "go get a job", but in 2015 those jobs don't even exist! And people cannot survive on pennies an hour. It sounds to me like people who want to abolish welfare are basically asking for mass death and starvation, just like the Irish potato famine. I think there is a Malthusian agenda here.
Deporting illegals was suggested by some conservatives along with closing the border and reducing legal immigration levels.
Not sure if the left is going to get onboard with that or not.
There was talk by Hillary and Obama in 2008 of revisiting our failed trade policies such as NAFTA and the 2000 China Trade Act.
I don`t see much happening there either.
Of course, this is a much more complicated issue than what you are presenting.
The first obstacle to wiping out poverty is the fact that the Democrat Party owes its political success to its failed economic policies.
After all, no one needs a party of government handouts if they are making too much money to qualify for the handouts.
The Democratic political strategy of keeping otherwise independent hardworking Americans dependent on government programs through high unemployment and declining wages goes back to the failure of the New Deal and the political success Democrats enjoyed then (FDR had to die in office to loose the White House).
We also have to understand and accept the fact that propaganda works and people, with the correct prodding, will willingly participate in their own enslavement.
You can go to any buy-here/pay-here used car lot or payday advance service to confirm that.
In recent years, those promoting dependency have started using the media to advertise the benefits of dependency for those willing to cut ties with the job market.
For example, you can have a free cell phone, but there are conditions...
You may automatically qualify for Lifeline service provided by Access Wireless if you participate in any of the following public assistance programs:
Federal Public Housing Assistance/Section 8
Low-Income Housing Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
Medicaid
National School Lunch Program's Free Lunch Program (NSLP)
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)/Food Stamps
Supplemental Security Income* (SSI)
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)
Tribal Qualifying Program based on State of residence
If you work for a living, spend a large portion of your paycheck on crappy health insurance, pay your own rent, pay your own electric and gas bill, buy your own food and otherwise handle your own financial affairs in a responsible manner, the people who hand out the free phones would like you to know that you and your job can go **** yourself.
You get nothing because you are not on the right team (See list above).
Its the same set of carrots and sticks used in the 1930s, but with a more direct requirement that you be a fully committed mooch...fence sitters not welcome.
Enter illegal immigrants:
Amnesty is being talked about quite a bit with corporate ***** Republicans eager to give criminals from another country the legal right to compete directly with Americans for legitimate jobs and thereby drive down prevailing wages to the delight of their corporate overlords.
Democrats just want falling wages and the accompanying increase in dependency on government largess that is their political lifeblood.
Meanwhile, median family incomes that have been declining ever since the mid 2000s should be expected to fall off the table once amnesty becomes the law of the land.
The solutions are simple from an ordinary American`s perspective, but the powers that be have other ideas.
From where I sit, the solutions to poverty in the US are pretty obvious.
We could reduce the number of workers to increase wages by deporting illegals.
A bounty could be offered for information leading to the deportation of illegal workers, and mandatory prison sentences for those who employ illegals would help as well.
We could withdraw from our ****ty trade deals and negotiate new ones that ensure the US a favorable outcome to trade.
We could reduce marginal corporate tax rates to European levels and stop selling exemptions to regulations.
We could prohibit the rewarding of politicians after they leave office for screwing America while in office.
We could stop filling our workforce with unemployable retards by giving each and every child in the US an education voucher that public schools will need to compete for in order to stay in business.
We could raise interest rates relative to inflation in order to increase the buying power of the US dollar (see Reaganomics).
How did these people survive in the past? Through charitable organizations and their local churches. Ooops, can't use the churches any more, they're either illegal, immoral or fattening by today's progressive standards.
Begging, borrowing, stealing, and in the worst case, murdering. That's what would happen again.
Thank you for being honest in your views.
I hope you're an atheist and pro-abortion.
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.
