We should want our future generations to be better off than we were.

Of course we want our future generations to be better off than we are. But that means striving to do better than we did...not expecting to get bigger, better, and more stuff for the same cost/effort/output that our generation did it with.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Of course we want our future generations to be better off than we are. But that means striving to do better than we did...not expecting to get bigger, better, and more stuff for the same cost/effort/output that our generation did it with.

This.

---

Of course we want our future generations to be better off than we are. But that means striving to do better than we did...not expecting to get bigger, better, and more stuff for the same cost/effort/output that our generation did it with.

I don't think it's unreasonable to want wages to increase with productivity and profits. It might also help with rising costs of living. 

---

Of course we want our future generations to be better off than we are. But that means striving to do better than we did...not expecting to get bigger, better, and more stuff for the same cost/effort/output that our generation did it with.

The federal minimum wage in 1968 was $1.60


That's equal to $10.90 in today's buying power.  Alternately $7.25 has $1.03 worth of buying power in 1968.  Well under than $1.60 minimum wage at the time.

 

Doesn't sound like the same cost/effort/output to me.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

No, I don't.


40 hrs a week at $15/hr works out to be about $400 dollars a week and that's well above minimum wage.


$1600/mth barely covers rent in most areas.


The problem is wages and jobs.


Edit: and my grandfather lived through the depression. Makes a lot of comparisons to then and now.

 

Your math is flawed.  40 * 15 = 600.  That amounts to $31200 per year.  At that wage, a person effectively doesn't pay income tax, especially if the person is married and it's a single income household.  If the person happens to have a child, they get the Earned Income Credit (EIC) and pay virtually no taxes at all.

 

It's easy to say that it was easier back in the day prior to 1980 for a family to live on one income, but a lot has changed since then.  There was no satellite/cable television, no cell phones, no internet, etc.  Heck, even having a color tv was considered a luxury.  There was no such thing as a microwave oven.  There were no ATM's and people actually saved money and thought twice before going to the bank to withdraw money.

 

There was a story that ran in the paper a few years back about a woman that was complaining that she wasn't getting a break from the local utility company, and was concerned about keeping her home heated.  In the background was a large flat screen television complete with DVD player and a gaming console.  I would wager that said television, gaming console, etc. was probably bought with a "tax refund".

 

Perhaps priorities in our society are flawed more so than the wages paid by employers.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

The federal minimum wage in 1968 was $1.60

That's equal to $10.90 in today's buying power. Alternately $7.25 has $1.03 worth of buying power in 1968. Well under than $1.60 minimum wage at the time.


Doesn't sound like the same cost/effort/output to me.

Quit with the facts. What's wrong with being the only civilized country with no off time benefits? Working builds character, so the 60 hour work weeks many claim to work, must have these people in the highest echelon of character status. Shrinking middle class? Who cares, everyone wants to work to get to the 1% bracket.

Who cares if standards were better in the 50s and 60s when family time was important and both parents didn't have to work to make ends meet.. So yesterday and old school.

And don't forget, campaign contributions equals free speech...so the more you work, the more you can contribute and get more " free" speech.

Then finally, the more you make, the more some pay in taxes ( some ). The more we can use to rebuild the Middle East countries.

C'mon man. Be American. Buy American ( lol ) and work like an American . Hard work will make you free... Wait...I've heard that somewhere before....oh yeah...labor camp somewhere.

---

Blakes Life Matters

Quit with the facts. What's wrong with being the only civilized country with no off time benefits? Working builds character, so the 60 hour work weeks many claim to work, must have these people in the highest echelon of character status. Shrinking middle class? Who cares, everyone wants to work to get to the 1% bracket.

Who cares if standards were better in the 50s and 60s when family time was important and both parents didn't have to work to make ends meet.. So yesterday and old school.

And don't forget, campaign contributions equals free speech...so the more you work, the more you can contribute and get more " free" speech.

Then finally, the more you make, the more some pay in taxes ( some ). The more we can use to rebuild the Middle East countries.

C'mon man. Be American. Buy American ( lol ) and work like an American . Hard work will make you free... Wait...I've heard that somewhere before....oh yeah...labor camp somewhere.

Also one of the few with no paternity leave.

---

The federal minimum wage in 1968 was $1.60

That's equal to $10.90 in today's buying power.  Alternately $7.25 has $1.03 worth of buying power in 1968.  Well under than $1.60 minimum wage at the time.

 

Doesn't sound like the same cost/effort/output to me.

So in 1968 you could support a family of four, buy a home and a car and live comfortably on minimum wage?

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

So in 1968 you could support a family of four, buy a home and a car and live comfortably on minimum wage?

In 1968, wasn't a McDonald's burger only a couple of cents each?

---

So in 1968 you could support a family of four, buy a home and a car and live comfortably on minimum wage?

 

So because you couldn't support a family of four, buy a home and a car and live comfortably on minimum wage in 1968... you should earn less when adjusted by inflation now, because hey 'you're still not able to do those things'?

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

So because you couldn't support a family of four, buy a home and a car and live comfortably on minimum wage in 1968... you should earn less when adjusted by inflation now, because hey 'you're still not able to do those things'?

Yes...that's exactly what I said. You caught me, and here I thought I was being so sneaky about it. :Teehee:



You said you wanted the next generation to do better than ours, and I pointed out that they can not expect to do the exact same work that you do and expect to be able to have a better lifestyle than you do now, even if you adjust wages to a comparable inflation level.


I also agree that wages should increase with at least the inflationary rate.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Yes...that's exactly what I said. You caught me, and here I thought I was being so sneaky about it. :teehee:



You said you wanted the next generation to do better than ours, and I pointed out that they can not expect to do the exact same work that you do and expect to be able to have a better lifestyle than you do now, even if you adjust wages to a comparable inflation level.


I also agree that wages should increase with at least the inflationary rate.

 

If they're working minimum wage, no.   But minimum wage workers today should expect more than what minimum wage in 1968 would do.  And they certainly can't do that if they don't at the very least have inflation adjusted rates for minimum wage.


Just look at the price of computers.  Or the price of HDTVs for that matter.  At one time an HDTV cost $600.  Now you can get one for about $250.  Over time things should become more affordable.  What is once a luxury, should not remain a luxury just because you can do without it.  Otherwise we can't really expect to grow.  The next generation should be able to do more with what is comparably the same amount of wages.

 

It's okay that we're moving to an economy that requires both people to work (even if you're making above minimum wage)  What I don't think is okay is that people making minimum wage (or thereabouts) have to be on food stamps so that they can make it.  And I don't think it's okay that people think "You're just lazy" if you aren't making it because there's a LOT of factors outside of your skills as to what you make.  The idea that if you work hard, you'll go somewhere just doesn't work so well anymore.  Today it's "Work hard, and your boss will get ahead" (and no, he won't pay you back once he gets there)  It's actually been like that for a while now.  The hard workers don't get credit for what they do.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

If they're working minimum wage, no. But minimum wage workers today should expect more than what minimum wage in 1968 would do. And they certainly can't do that if they don't at the very least have inflation adjusted rates for minimum wage.

Just look at the price of computers. Or the price of HDTVs for that matter. At one time an HDTV cost $600. Now you can get one for about $250. Over time things should become more affordable. What is once a luxury, should not remain a luxury just because you can do without it. Otherwise we can't really expect to grow. The next generation should be able to do more with what is comparably the same amount of wages.


It's okay that we're moving to an economy that requires both people to work (even if you're making above minimum wage) What I don't think is okay is that people making minimum wage (or thereabouts) have to be on food stamps so that they can make it. And I don't think it's okay that people think "You're just lazy" if you aren't making it because there's a LOT of factors outside of your skills as to what you make. The idea that if you work hard, you'll go somewhere just doesn't work so well anymore. Today it's "Work hard, and your boss will get ahead" (and no, he won't pay you back once he gets there) It's actually been like that for a while now. The hard workers don't get credit for what they do.

I would like to add that "get a better job", for a lot of little is people is easier said than done. The jobs age just not there. No on wants to acknowledge the fact that well paying jobs are just not as plentiful as would be ideal compared with the people that actually want to work. This is a reality that must be accepted and then dealt with.


It's this mentality of well if I could do it you can. I did and you know what I know plenty of people either didn't have the amazing parents or the social situation or even the geographical location to advance or succeed as others have. Perhaps they made poor choices when they were young. Should these people starve or not be able to educate themselves or take care of their children? That's not a society to me.

---

 That's not a society to me.

 

It's not a society, it's paternalism.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Interesting...

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...s-unhinged

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The federal minimum wage in 1968 was $1.60

That's equal to $10.90 in today's buying power. Alternately $7.25 has $1.03 worth of buying power in 1968. Well under than $1.60 minimum wage at the time.


Doesn't sound like the same cost/effort/output to me.

This is it exactly. Hard numbers that have nothing to do with having cable lol.

---

It's not a society, it's paternalism.

 

It's interesting to me when the right shows a disregard for human life in so many different ways, you know, considering the base. What happened to compassion? I know, there is no money in it. 

---

The federal minimum wage in 1968 was $1.60


That's equal to $10.90 in today's buying power.  Alternately $7.25 has $1.03 worth of buying power in 1968.  Well under than $1.60 minimum wage at the time.

 

Doesn't sound like the same cost/effort/output to me.  

 

So going off those numbers, since 1968 we've seen an inflation of 550%, what do you think causes that kind of inflation?

---

Interesting...

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...s-unhinged

That was an interesting read. Thanks for sharing. 

---

So going off those numbers, since 1968 we've seen an inflation of 550%, what do you think causes that kind of inflation?

 

Several factors cause that kind of inflation.  There's no single root cause, and most economists agree on that, no matter what else they disagree on.  The minimum wage has little real effect on inflation.  Raising minimum wage 40% would not result in a 40% inflation jump for example.  In fact it'd be much smaller.  And a little inflation is a good thing.  The reason minimum wage doesn't cause such a great jump in inflation is because wages aren't really that high a percentage of prices.  

 

Then you have a lot of artificial supply limitations like in the housing market, where they don't put vacant houses on the market.  Why?  To drive the cost up, of course.  Just look at how people go wild for things like Tickle-me-elmo.  Or the newest game system, how you can buy 3 of them, and sell the other two to make up the cost.

 

In an ideal world, companies would pay you what you are worth, not what they want to pay you (which is the least they can get away with, and still have employees).  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke.