This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Income Disparity Solution: Restore The Minimum Wage To 1969 Levels
Submitted by Charles Hugh Smith from Of Two Minds
Income Disparity Solution: Restore the Minimum Wage to 1969 Levels
If we want to lessen income disparity, the solution is easy: restore the minimum wage to levels considered reasonable 43 years ago in 1969.
There is much hand-wringing about the vast income disparity in the U.S. between the top 5% and the bottom 25%, and precious little offered as a solution. Once again we are told the problem is "complex" and thus by inference, insoluble.
Actually, it's easily addressed with one simple act: restore the minimum wage to its 1969 level, and adjust it for the inflation that has been officially under-reported. If you go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Inflation Calculator and plug in $1.60 (the minimum wage in 1969 when I started working summers in high school) and select the year 1969, you find that in 2012 dollars the minimum wage should be $10 per hour if it were to match the rate considered "reasonable" 43 years ago, when the nation was significantly less wealthy and much less productive.
The current Federal minimum wage is $7.25, though states can raise it at their discretion. State rates runs from $7.25 to $8.25, with Washington state the one outlier at $9.04/hour.
In 40 years of unparalleled wealth and income creation, the U.S. minimum wage has declined by roughly a third in real terms. "Official" measures of inflation have been gamed and massaged for decades to artificially lower the rate, for a variety of reasons: to mask the destructiveness to purchasing power of Federal Reserve policy, to lower the annual cost-of-living increases to Social Security recipients, and to generally make inept politicians look more competent than reality would allow.
The full extent of this gaming is open to debate, but let's assume inflation has been under-reported by about 1% per year for the past two decades. That would suggest the minimum wage should be adjusted upward by about 20%, from $10 to $12/hour.
All those claiming such an increase will destroy the nation (or equivalent hyperbole) need to explain how the nation survived the prosperous 1960s paying the equivalent of $10-$12/hour in minimum wage. Exactly what has weakened the economy such that the lowest paid workers must bear the brunt of wage cuts?
To understand the modest scale of such an increase in the context of total household income and wealth, consider these charts. Let's start by recalling that 38 Million Workers Made Less Than $10,000 in 2010-- Equal to California's Population. (Why the Middle Class Is Doomed April 17, 2012).
There are about 140 million jobs in the U.S., including part-time and temporary, and roughly 40 million workers earn less than $10,000 a year. This is the vast population earning minimum wage, and their earnings constitute a small share of total income.
The bottom 90% have seen their wages stagnate for 40 years, but the bottom layer earning minimum wage have seen their real earnings decline by roughly one-third (not counting entitlements they might qualify for as members of the "working poor.")
In the good old days of more widely distributed incomes, the bottom 20% who generally earn minimum wage actually saw significant increases in income. That has reversed in the financialization era.
Those earning minimum wage hold a tiny sliver of the nation's wealth.
Apologists for low wages claim we must "get competitive" with low-wage nations, as global wage arbitrage has cut wages everywhere. This claim overlooks the fact that the vast majority of minimum-wage positions are precisely the jobs that cannot be outsourced: cleaning offices, fast-food jobs, pizza delivery, agricultural work, and so on.
Other apologists claim that since these positions are "low productivity," they "deserve" lower wages. If we as a nation reckoned them worthy of $10-$12/hour 40 years ago, then why are low-productivity jobs less deserving now?
Still other apologists claim that raising the minimum wage would 1) destroy small businesses and 2) trigger painful increases in food and other prices.
The only way the minimum wage can hurt small business is if some small businesses are allowed to cheat and pay illegally low wages as a way of lowering the cost of their service. If the law were uniformly and aggressively enforced, for "black market" and above-market wages alike, then those cheating their employees would slowly be eliminated from the economy via heavy fines.
Once everyone is paying $10-$12/hour, even for informal work, the "playing field" will be leveled at a higher scale.
Given the modest share of the national income earned by low-paid workers, claims that costs would skyrocket are groundless. Yes, costs would rise, but not by enough to impoverish the nation.
What all those decrying restoration of a reasonable minimum wage overlook is that the working poor will spend most of their increased wages, and that will actually aid the economy where it counts. Aren't we tired yet of Federal Reserve policies that enable more skimming by the top 1% while giving nothing to the bottom 50%? The simple, straightforward way to correct the vast income imbalances is to restore the minimum wage to 1969 levels and adjust for under-reported inflation.
What about the wealthy? Shouldn't they pay more than the rest of us? Well, actually, they already do, for the most part: the top 25% of taxpayers--34 million workers out of a workforce of 140 million--pay almost 90% of all Federal income taxes. But we'll address that aspect of income disparity tomorrow.
»
- 15034 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Really don't give a shit. Many sheeple fail to understand "responsible behavior". Profanity is like reality to some, it will suprise them "offend them" and take their fucking head off just the same and that will be that. There is no doubt that nature and real markets will fix all this. All one can do is hedge accordingly, period.
A used bandaid for gangrene.
Why should wage rates be a function of anything other than productivity?
why should wage rates be a political football
what has DC got to teach anybody but how to be corrupt and go bankrupt
"what has DC got to teach anybody but how to be corrupt and go bankrupt"
Well, they are the experts. Long fascism and war. same as it ever was.
Name one thing productive that a CEO of a major corporation or a Banker does to earn a multimillion dollar wage.
When you get to be one, you can tell us.
I could consider that a reasonable thing to do..
if it included a provision to disband and make all unions illegal.
I see a few problems with this...
Illegal immigration. Unless the legality of workers is enforced, this will only drive people to hire more illegals.
Inflation/cost of living is regional in nature. $10/hr is still not a living wage in many places because RE is still too inflated.
LMFAO!! Offer people who create things of real value a "wage" they can't live on. FAIL. How about we stop punishing savers and responsible behavior, prosecute the fucking fraud, restore the fucking rule of laws and contract and let some real capital investment (from savers) fucking occur for a change. How fucking stupid are these paper-pushing shills (who add no real value to the system). Fuck them.
Charles Hugh Smith - like Michael Hudson - has always had that disagreeable statist streak in him...like many pundits, he's good on the problems but his answers call for more government...
Yes increase minimum wage and put more youth out of the job market. What a ridiculous post. Why stop at $10? Why not make it $100 per hour? If you increase minmum wage then the union workers will take the stance that they need to be paid a higher wage based on what non union entry level jobs are paying. Then we get the wage inflation that will trigger hyper inflation. Government "solutions" are not the answer. To fix the wage disparity we need to take out the moral hazard and let the bigs fail,ease regulations on small businesses, and not reward multinationals with tax incentives to outsource good paying jobs.
good points
of course first we have to get multinationals to stop running our governments
(and our Supreme Court to stop telling us we can't limit their campaign contributions)
Excellent point, Dr. Engali. The Bernank wants inflation at 2%, the rate the gubmit steals from wage earners. Wage inflation would trigger to many unintended consequences for the fed to handle without raising interest rates. Some margin for error, don't ya think?
I already posted this earlier today but here goes again. The segment of the population that is recieving government assistance for not working (unemployed, fake disabled, welfare) are only consumers and add absolutely no value to the country. We need this segment of the population to produce something of value for the country. Wage earners are both producers and consumers but their wages are also going to this segment of the population that consume but not help produce. Everyone needs to help bail, row, carry, lift, hoist.....
LMFAO!!! Before we "all" start bailing, rowing, carrying etc. how about we have an adult conversation about the real fucking "value" of those paper-pushing financial fucks stealing real wealth from the eCONomy but not producing anything of real fucking value?
I know at least one metal worker who is currently unemployed and he paid in big time to unemployment when he was running his business. You don't think he should get some of that money back? fuck you.
Is this not the conversation you want to have? Fuck you then. Atlas is shrugging and you stink of fear like many paper-pushers I know. None of them want to restore the rule of law either, because then their livelyhood would be illeagal and they would go to prison.
Moral hazard is a bitch motherfucker.
Why stop at $12/hour? We should make everyone more comfortable and just raise minimum wage to $20 or $30 per hour.
Minimum wage is such a stupid distraction.
Why not just set everyone's wage at $30/hour? Then you will redistribute productivity instead of money, but at least everyone can claim they're tied for first place. Kind of a back door to communism.
Yea and you have 5 people to take care of the phones instead of mr burn the place down shoved down in the subbasement with his lust for the stapler.
Yep, we should stop to think why the minimum wage always has to keep rising.
Or why a positive inflation rate is targeted.
We can never question the underlying reasons why we always have to make more $$ as the inflation monster nips at our heels (fractional reserve banking).
pods
sorry, increase the minimum wage will make the US labor force even less competitive.
the human soceity made great progress when the church stopped meddling with economy.
it's time to stop the government and government-sanctioned cartels from meddling with economy.
Why should we have to compete on a global level? Just because multinational owned MSM "news" outlets push that mindset for the benefit of themselves does not make it an absolute truth. Nothing will change for the better until people can think beyond the propaganda, stop mindlessly regurgatating it to their own detriment, and demand a level playing field.
The argument against laws and enforcement of them that protect a country's citizens from being scammed by the wealthy is to me one of the silliest mind sets that the average person has today. The bankers gone wild that are ruining the world economy and average peoples ability to attain a decent level of prosperity has occurred precisely because they were allowed to operate freely and with no restraint.
There is no such thing as a benevolent free market, no matter what some English fool pontificated a few centuries ago.
And yet they are "regulated" by your precious state.
The government is what the wealthy use to scam us. It appears to have worked on you, at least.
The reason that the bankers get away with what they do is not that there is a lack of regulation, but that the system itself is set up to allow them to privatize their profits and socialize their losses.
Who set up the system? The government and its regulations that you are so keen on. The banks would be out of business by now in a free market. It's people who think like you that keep them in business.
I hope JPM or GS at leasts sends you a fruit basket for supporting them at every turn.
Economic idiocy
When companies and individuals can screw over illegal immigrants at $6 an hour no overtime or benefits it is no wonder the "legal" minimum wage is a pitiful $7.25 an hour.
$7.25 an hour is $15,080 a year at 40 hours a week. That is $1,256 per month before taxes (property, car, sales, FICA, etc.).
Now, who can survive in even a small town on that much? You are looking at $1,000 a month after taxes if you are lucky.
Worst of both worlds; crony capitalism and parasitic socialism marching arm-in-arm for the Kleptoligarchy.
You cant, and Im not sure you should. It was not different 20-30 years ago; when I was much younger and could only get low paying jobs I either worked two or had roommates as did everyone else I knew living on that income level.
Who said anyone should survive on minimum wage? It's for students, apprentices, etc. If you want to survive, go to school, learn something productive and get a real job.
but who would wash your dirty dishes and clean your yard if noboody did physical labor because everbody when to school to use their brain instead of their muscle.
eb,
That is almost the same amount people make from disability. How do they survive on that?
Most disability pays around $1,300 per month less the $110 medicaid health insurance premium. Now if both spouses are drawing it is easy to live on that. My ex draws about $2K per month but she was an RN for 15 years before she got hurt and paid higher social security taxes hence draws a higher amount. My last notice from social security before they quit sending them out said if I went on social security disability I would get about $1,900. I could live on that as I have no debt other then an $700 monthly mortgage.
Lets raise it to $20 per hour.
Then I can not only check out and bag my own groceries, but I will have to stock the shelves before I buy them.
How about we abandon fractional reserve banking?
Wonder what percentage of that top 0.1% are directly connected to cheap credit money?
Sure the poor are getting screwed. They will continue to get screwed as long as we have a central bank determining that 2% inflation is good and a government that will underestimate that 2% inflation.
Mr. Condutor, may I please get off at the next stop? I have been riding the Crazy Train for too long.
pods
If I'm going to scan and bag my groceries for the store I want a 10% discount.
I aint scanning and bagging shit. They have young girls and bag boys for that.
Sign me up for your grocery store. The baggers by me are 80 years old and slow as fuck. The kids all live off their student loans.
Find a college town without a walmart.
Move there. Enjoy the girls each year.
Hey guys, I have a solution to fix a complex problem. The solution is a simple new government law. Government laws never have unintended consequences, right? Right???
Bah, less articles from economic illiterates. Minimum wage/wage controls? Idiot. The middle class is being gutted via the Fed and fiat money. Inflation is the stealth thief that steals from the middle class by devaluing their earnings.
Just because the numbers that follow after the dollar sign increase over the years doesn't correlate to an increase in purchasing power.
Lord help us. We're surrounded by idiots.
This is a great post. Raising the minimum wage would put upward pressure on other low end wages and the demand boom would have a great impact on the economy. This is possibly the single best policy we could adopt right now to improve the economy.
My apologies in advance if you are being sarcastic.
IDIOT!
No, I'm not being sarcastic. The biggest problem we have when we enter the world of the zero lower bound is that most of the solutions seem counter-intuitive and require deeper analysis. Most people never make it to that level of analysis.
Yes, we need higher wages at the low end despite high unemployment. Yes, we need more government spending to create jobs despite the high deficits. Yes, we are more threatened by deflation than inflation despite the money printing. Yes, a gold standard would crush our economy back to the 19th century.
Thank you for clarifying. Not only are you a complete economic dunce, but you are a dangerous idiot.
Well you are the one hollering about inflation during a deflationary downturn. How long you been hollering that rates would rise? 3 years? 4 years? Good luck with that.
Deflationary downturn? I assume you are referring to things like housing PRICES. What do you think happens when a bubble pops? Prices keep going UP?! Sheesh
"How long you been hollering that RATES would rise? 3 years? 4 years?"
Rates? Who said anything about rates? Yeah, rates are gonna rise when they are being kept artificially low by the Fed? That's sarcasm in case you aren't bright enough to pick up on it.
Once again, you exhibit a profound ignorance of basic economics. Next time you fill up with gas or buy groceries, please try and lecture the people you are paying about how great all that deflation is and how cheap gas and food are. LOL The look on their faces will be priceless!
The billion price index has annual inflation at about 2% and trending down. This despite higher rents caused by fewer homeowners. (houses are assets, while rents are a consumer price). After 4 years of money printing the only inflation specks we've seen are when gas prices fluctuate up (before fluctuating back down). In this economy the one thing we haven't had to worry about is inflation. And you are giving lectures.
No, less people will be hired if their wages go up artificially. The market decides the wage, not some govt bureaucrat.
(Also assuming no sarcasm obviously)
In our current environment of income inequality and sluggish demand the demand boost from higher wages at the low end would overwhelm any job losses. The added purchasing power at the low end would generate an increase in jobs.
Actually in addition to less people getting hired, more people would get fired if their productivity turns negative. I'm sorry but you don't seem to get it. Everyone already earns what they deserve, the market is very efficient at price discovery if not artificially altered by the govt.
Productivity doesn't establish a wage (this is obvious from median wage growth in the past 3 decades). Productivity sets a ceiling for a wage and we are way below that ceiling. Wages are decided by the supply and demand of labor.
"Wages are decided by the supply and demand of labor."
That is exactly as it should be. If there is a higher demand for labor a higher wage will be paid. If there is a low demand then a lower wage will be paid. This pricing mechanism helps a small to mid size business stay in business during slower economic times.
No, this pricing mechanism causes slower economic times when the middle class is being underpaid (relative to their productivity). A boost in the minimum wage would help to alleviate the problem.
That's hillarious. Lack of demand and over capacity causes slower economic times. You never answered my first question. What is an appropriate minimum wage $10, $100, $ 1,000 an hour? And who is the best to determine what it should be for my business?
Yes, lack of demand causes slower economic times and over capacity. I think the author has a good start for a minimum wage boost and I think the minimum wage should be determined by our elected representatives as it is now.
My question was for you. Because at some point your argument breaks down. At some point you will have to say" well you can't raise them that high. That's just silly, you'll price yourself right out of business." and that is why the market needs to set the price based on demand for labor.
No, the argument doesn't break down if you don't try to be too finite. In some economic environments it is safe to say the minimum wage is too low. In others it might be safe to say it is too high.
This is fascism.
So we've been a fascist state all these years? Go figure.
Gerald Celente has been saying that for years.
Well bully for Gerald Celente
You just broke your own argument. " In some economic environments it is safe to say the minimum wage is too low. In others it might be safe to say it is too high. ". The market( economic environment ) is the best barometer to determine wages.
No, my argument broke your brain
Wow a tremendous defense! I'll take it by your juvenile response that you are out of points, and I'll claim victory. Have a nice day.
You made a nonsensical statement, then you quoted me, then you stated an opinion. Take whatever you want from my response to that.
Lightweight.
If I had to raise my employees above $10 per hour I would be forced to shut down right away and lay off the remaining 15 employees I have left. I can't get my clients to pay higher hourly bill rates for my service..matter of fact-since 2008 I have had to decrease my bill rate by 20% just to keep most of my clients. In 2005-2007 I paid 20% higher wages but I had six times the business volume at 2 million annual and now I am at $350,000 annual. There is nothing left for me to cut as the fat is all gone and has been for sometime now. I even cut my salary by 70% and sold off most of my assets and haven't had a vacation in 4 years.
Now, on the other hand if we can get the end buyer to agree to pay more then raising minimum wage would be acceptable but I don't suspect that will be two easy to accomplish.
Small business is being gobbled up by larger businesses and they are running on a volume economy of scale business model hence lower profit margins but able to ride it out.
I am running on fumes trying to keep my business afloat without taking on debt I can't afford even with ZIRP. I am just glad I saved during the goodtimes otherwise I wouldn't be in business today.
Nope, minimum wage increases would be death to many businesses and unemployment reported numbers at 25%.
"Productivity doesn't establish a wage (this is obvious from median wage growth in the past 3 decades). Productivity sets a ceiling for a wage and we are way below that ceiling. "
post hoc ergo propter hoc - and that's only if I grant you the accuracy of the data you are using.
Idiot! Man, I drank too much coffee today. lol
Okay, so you're a business owner and you have 2 salesmen. One sells twice as much as the other and brings in double the net prosfit of the other, and you are going to pay them the same? LOL, suuuuuuuure. THAT'S gonna work out just great!
Yeah, I don't think anybody said you would pay them the same. But you do have a vivid imagination.
"Productivity doesn't establish a wage..."
You need to work on your basic reading comprehension. If productivity doesn't establish a wage, then how can you logically conclude that, caeteris paribus , a more productive worker will earn the same as a less productive worker? Granted, it might happen for a very short period of time initially, but it won't last long.
Your assumptions are foolish. A more productive worker can get paid more than a less productive worker and still not be paid equal to her productivity.
What a statist answer. And who are you or the government to subjectively decide the value of the labor provided by a worker to his employer? A mutually agreed upon, non-coerced relationship is NONE of your or the government's business, and the value is best decided by the parties to the agreement.
Of course, you prefer to insert coercion wherever you may for your social planning goals. Go practice on those who will consent to being the lab rats for your failed delusions of grandeur and leave us free people alone.
I'm not arguing for anything that your government hasn't been doing your entire life - establish a minimum wage.
So, if your dad has been beating your mom all of your life, it's okay? Nice moral compass and backbone Einstein.
A mutually agreed upon, non-coerced relationship is NONE of your or the government's business, and the value is best decided by the parties to the agreement.
__________________________
Indeed. Another US citizen truism.
You two should take that up with the American electorate. Alas, I am only one vote.
Alas, the truly sad part is that it only takes one idiot with your progressive, statist ideology in a(n) (unconstitutional) regulatory position (can you say Cass Sunstein boys and girls?) to play havoc with the freedoms of others.
Much of the unwanted crap the government crams down the electorate's throat doesn't originate with with elected representatives, but rather unelected bureaucrats and judges.
So when I and the hooker hook up and settle on a price the government shouldn't have any say in the matter. Seems to work just fine at the Mustang Ranch in Nevada athough the girls are required by government health to have their snatch checked out weekly. Really unnecessary though because any customer could determine by smell check if it is wise to purchase the snatch.
TT. Please note the following:
You are arguing with Robert Reich (or his most beloved disciple).
You TKO'd him 3 posts above.
Carry on.
I'm sorry but prices and wages are not established by one single entity, they are 'discovered' by the market (all people trading stuff & services)
If you want govt to decide this for you, go live in some communist or fascist country please.
Sorry, but our government has been determining a minimum wage for many decades. Looks like it is you who will have to leave. You may find a government more suitable to your tastes in Somalia.
our government has done a lot of questionable things for many decades
most of them do
Simpe question- in the business you started, do you pay your workers substantially more than minimum wage?
Haven't started a business but where I work (private sector) I think everyone is above minimum wage. Could be wrong about some of the low end employees though. Are you about to ding me for not having started my own business? Tried once, the venture capitalists didn't take the bait.
Everyone already earns what they deserve, the market is very efficient at price discovery if not artificially altered by the govt.
I'm not sure that efficient price discovery extends to high priced labor. It would seem that a significant percentage of CEO compensation is often times the result of market beta and not alpha, but the level of pay would seem to imply that it's 100% alpha. Many boards could find better managers for less if there wasn't collusion and cronyism.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/11/news/companies/chesapeake-ceo-mcclendon/...
So what do you think a fair wage is? Should it be $10 an hour? $100 an hour? Why stop there? Lets' shoot for the moon and make minimun $1,000 an hour.
Don't forget the local cities also decide wage caps/limits. We used to work for a construction company. They paid anywhere from 8.50 to 12.53 (The max allowed by hourly workers in the city council)
Otherwise you were salaried and could care less for the shit workers "At-Will" on the hourly dole.
I used to run out of the Port in Baltimore. The unions there paid the workers 25-40 an hour, provided that they were selected that day for work.
They don't move very fast... lunches took an hour or so.. maybe a bit more in bad weather.
However all those containers got moved rather well... they just had to inspect it after getting them off the ship.
Sorry I missed your 1 week birthday four days ago... so happy belated birthday. Now I only have one question....are you sure you're in the right place? Maybe you meant to sign up for the Yahoo boards.
Stimulati = MDB lite
There are about 140 million jobs in the U.S., including part-time and temporary, and roughly 40 million workers earn less than $10,000 a year. This is the vast population earning minimum wage, and their earnings constitute a small share of total income.
This is what you didn't put in your SAVE the minimum wage story. The 40 million workers that make less then 10g's get section 8 housing, EBT and they don't pay for electric, phone or any other service including health care. And all of them can some how drive a new car every few years because no credit isn't bad credit.
and golly, everyone knows the minimum wage cures corruption, overpopulation and dwindling resources
It's amazing people still believe that by raising the costs of labor you will solve problems.
We had the last round of peak employment just prior to the Bush-Kennedy wage increases. Where are we today? The cost of labor for small businesses rose 40%, and unemployment began rising even before the housing bubble burst.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article7010-minimum-wage-maximum-impact.html
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5985-have-we-forgotten-the-minimum-wage...
It's easy enough to get this old hippie's blog posts directly in any number of ways, why must ZH continue to waste bandwidth on it by reposting everything that goes through his doobie-adled mind.
I think $1.60/hr. would make more sense than $12.00/hr. Better yet - abolish the minimum wage!
Uh oh . . . I don't think the clown parade of self-proclaimed Galts are gonna like this idea!
I heard the people with money are the real producers. Capital-ism, right?
How dare you suggest that the hoi polloi aren't getting enough!!!!
Oww, owwww, my teats are killing me!
Thanks,
The Real Galt
"I heard the people with money are the real producers. Capital-ism, right?"
Another idiot. If you think people who can create fiat currency out of nothing via legalized accounting fraud are producers, then there's not much hope for you.
You can't be sayin' that I've been had?! :-(
I'm leaving the inner city if this happens. It's not low pay that's hurting people. It's lack of jobs. Raising the price causes the market to clear less often. This is the best way to increase youth unemployment to European levels. Those roaming gangs of teenagers beating up
Tourists and robbing 7-11s don't have summer jobs.
But this the CHS socialist analysis. Good on the inequality pieces. Terrible on the solution.
Agreed. Central Planning 101.
If there's no adverse effects to raising the minimum wage, why not make it $100 / hr. Clearly its just a wealth transfer from the undeserving 1% to the bottom 90%
Our dollar is the best in show right now, so how about we put some of our debt towards a job guarantee program and universal health care so the sheeple have a chance to live respectable lives? I see no bond vigilanties on the horizon.
My counterproposal: how about we default on all national debt on the grounds that it's "odious" and require everyone to pay CASH for healthcare? If people have to pay cash, prices will get cheaper in a hurry.
Sounds pretty uncivilized to me. Guess I'm used to living in a developed country in a modern age.
Why doesn't minimum wage increase annually with CPI? Or at least every other year.
Why should it? Why should the government set the minimum for what someone can sell their labor for?
Right. Get with the program here. Its about the providers of capital, all highly leveraged of course, extracting their fair share. Free markets, sheeple! Oh, and there's a freakin oil boom going on in North Dakota. Go live in the tent city there and you too can have a chance at the American Dream. I hear those places are willing to train entry level sheeple and pay above minimum wage!
Some of the right have suggested this along with moving SSI payment increases to it too instead of wasting time on this topic. Now you can carp about how CPI is calcuated and measured but it would remove what is really a trivial issue. Those insisting on here that minimum wage increases fundamentally depress employment are full of BS. It is a nominal effect on employment just as it is on wage growth in the overall economy.
the maggots didn't steal 10,000X the average wage back then either. I say bring out the guillotines.
Other than fiat currency, the minimum wage is the most cruel and oppressive government policy in existence.
Oppressive for the 1%'s profits.
Your 1%/99% tripe is getting old. If you are relying on the government to tell an employer what your worth is, then you will surely never succeed.
Sorry I can't spew the stuff your neocon pundits produce so effectively. Hard times call for more protections for the working stiff.
Isn't it interesting how modern day "solutions" have not a darn thing to do with a free market anymore? Centrally plan it, mandate it, shove it down the throats of the masses for their own good! Suggestion: shove your "solution", and STFU. Another suggestion, if you really give a shit: Holding greedy fuck banksters and ignorant politicians might be a better place to start.
How can there be a free market when crony capitalists are running the show? Profits first, to reward the 1% non productive class, and if that means snatching wealth from the sheeple, so be it.
Are you implying that the other 99% are productive?
Wage slaves are a lot more productive than trust fund babies
I grow somewhat irritated at the suppositions of these wage disparity alarmists. Make the case for me, by correlating marketable skill disparity, that the market isn't simply reacting to reality.
So why aren't we subsidizing building the skill sets necessary instead of requiring future workers to go deeply into debt to aquire them, with no guarantee that they will find a decent job after becoming debt slaves?
We did.
Then the schools realized that vo-tech and it's number of trades became a unnecessary expense.
The employers realized that if you don't know how to lay brick, then someone else will.
I once was told that I was over qualified even though I was properly licensed to drive any vehicle the outfit owned... 40 of which of all kinds surrounded the interview building.
That was the beginning of my awakening and planning to get the fuck out of the idiot states and get better life somewhere else in a free state.
So where is this bastion of freedom you found refuge in?
If you think the only way to obtain marketable skills involves running up debt, you simply aren't looking that hard.
Here's a case for you. When Japan had a growing economy that was the envy of the world, there was a government madate that the highest compensation received by top earners of a corporation could not be more than 10 times higher than the lowest wage paid to an employee. Japan went from having many impoverished people to having a huge middle class. Soon after this success, the higher ups decided that compensation only ment wages, and did not inlcude perks such as stock options, cotry club memberships, etc. This led to large disparites in real wealth. Japan's economy then began to erode, and today it is a mess. An economy cannot function and grow unless the majority of the people have money to spend.
You would also have to look at real v nominal in health care expense, higher education, energy, housing and food. When you compare how much the cost those essential things have increased versus the decrease in wages, it is clear why the middle class is disappearing.
I know the answer to this one ! The middle class is disappearing because Obama hates Black People.
The middle class was created in our once free market by those without inherent privilege working hard to climb above their peers. As the work ethic waned through the formation of attitudes of entitlement, unions and government subsidies took up the slack, the influences of which are now both declining.
Why not just offer an incentive to save and positive capital formation? Let the market set interest rates at a reasonable value that reflects risk and reward? How about Bernanke dies in a fire? Maybe stop fucking with the market and let the broke fuckers go broke and reward the people who are prudent? It really isn't that hard
Nothing should be subsidized: neither saving nor consumption. We need free markets not central planning.
What we need is more inflation from artificial pricing of labour, rather than market rates. Then when inflation brings real wages back exactly to where they were before the minimum wage bump, we can just try it again. What a shitty article.
Instead of this stupid article's proposition, let's end the re-distribution of wealth implemented via bank bail-outs, end special taxation rules that favour big businesses and end differential taxation of capital vs labour (i.e. preferential taxation of capital gains. Dividend tax rates are what they are for a reason, and it's called integration; but let's make sure integration works).
Why not start with that, instead of this madness?
My boss used to work prior to sunrise and past sunset. Whoever handled the shovel and drove the trucks the longest got the best pay for the day... maybe a little something extra under the table (60-200_ per day cash) depending on how fast/how happy the customer was.
I was not fat, worked 20 hours on a hotdog plus tea lunch and simply kept a gallon of gatorade at all times.
Those were the days....
Um, could we please, just once, actually give "free market capitalism" a chance? Not the massively massaged centrally planned whipping boy blame-every-ill-on-capitalism-when-it-is-actually-croney-capitalism we actually have?
Stop trying to "fix" things by meddling; JGTHOOTW!. (Just Get The Hell Out Of The Way).
I love the central planning logic, where does a $10 minimum wage come from (1960's america = good, therefore $10 minimum wage = good)? Why not make it $100 or $1000? Then we would see the folly of this kind of intervention more clearly. All a minimum wage does is punish people who are too unproductive/low skilled to be worth employing at least the minimum wage.
Since minorities and immigrants make up a large portion of the unskilled/unproductive labor force, that makes CHS a world class racist and xenophobe.
You racist prick. Yeah, just keep believing under/unemployment is about minorities and immigrants if it helps you sleep at night. Maybe you should look at some statistics instead of listening to some neocon pundit.
median wages of males:
white - $31,335
black - $22,740
unemployment:
white - 8.7%
black - 16%
Those statistics came from the BLS and wikipedia (well known conservative pundits).
It helps to play for the right team in a crony capitalism system, doesn't it? And live in the right neighborhood and go to the right schools and so on.
Everybody here is aware the system only works for a select few, but seems to be oblivious to the people underneath them in the economic caste system we live in. It is no matter.
Reset is the only possible outcome.
It also helps if you don't simply crank out kids and then abandoned them. Fuck all the "baby moma" and the parents that are MIA. It also helps not to trash your neighborhoods etc. Minorities need to look in the fucking mirror.
you have been programmed well to fight for the cause of the 1%. turning one group of sheeple against the other is very effective.
Not gonna buff out
It will be easier to search on google various towns and cities by racial makeup.
You will find those with 85% or greater white or whatever were pretty prosperous.
The rest depended on how much swag and cash you can get by armed robbery in the 7-11 that day.
Minimum wage laws COST jobs and are destructive to our economy. $7 to $9 to start at an entry-level job? As an employer, that's outrageous and I'll choose not to hire as long as that's the case. Free markets don't have minimum wage laws. Why should the Govt have any say at all what I want to pay my workers??? Ever wonder why there's such an extremely high youth unemployment rate in this country?? Minimum wage laws are DIRECTLY responsible for a portion of this country's high unemployment rates. So is it such a big.....jump to say that IF we want a lower unemployment rate with more jobs (especially for our youth) as well as more free market forces in our economy, that ALL minimum wage laws should be immediately repealed??? My guess is that it makes too much sense and as we all know, here in America if something makes too much sense it will never be implemented thanks to the ruling cabal that must maintain control....of everything. Even what we're thinking, at least those of us that are still capable of that simple feat.
Yeah, where do these sheeple get off thinking they should be able to make a living wage. Used to be moms weren't in the workforce because a living wage was able to maintain a modest lifestyle with one person working. Inflation in the things that matter (health care, housing, higher education) along with wage deflation has made that impossible. But, hey, just go move back in with the parents, help them pay the property taxes since they are in trouble too.
Yes, in the good old days, you had lots of single-income households where the sole source income was a minimum wage job, such as sweeping floors or grilling hot dogs. That is how it worked. Back in 1955, a man with a job as a soda jerk was considered a top marriage prospect, becuse it paid so incredibly well.
It sure did.
They actually had lunch/breakfast counters at the ben franklen or the 5 and dime stores.
You actually needed a workforce to run the store properly to take care of the customers.
None of that now. Too costly, licensing hassles and the rise of the self serve crap.
They hand you a cup and point to the well abused and under-maintained drink server with a possibly problem product.
Making my own coffee or visiting starbucks is such a joy.
The minimum wage has nothing to do with a living wage. They're as different as apples & oranges. The minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage. It was meant to be a starting point where one gains experience in the hopes that that will lead to a better higher paying job. If the minimum wage isn't enough for you then you need to pay attention and learn your lessons to where your employer KNOWS you're worth what he's paying you. If not, under free market forces, YOU are free to leave and look for a higher paying job elsewhere. That this simple excercise in free markets, business and logic seems to be above most in our Govt's employ as well as a whole bunch of moronic posts here, we're collectively pissing in the wind anyway. If most don't know this most basic of Libertarian free market economic principles, WTF does it even matter???
There are no guarantees in life. You should be able to make what you want, without relying on the government to ensure it for you.
If a high minimum wage is the answer, then hell let's make it $100/hour.
spooz - your heart's in the right place: problems exist, life stinks for many, those at the top are obscenely wallowing in luxury.
I merely suggest that you might focus on the *initial* cause of the imbalance when you look for a fix, not the end consequences that result. If your car continually pulls to the left, get an alignment job; don't insist that the power steering manufacturer add a right pulling 3-ft-lb torque bias to all future cars to remedy the problem.
When it comes to our extremely out-of-balance social economy, a significant culprit for much of the imbalance can be found in government overstepping, coupled with fiat currency. The currency allows government(s) much more power than they should rightfully have, by being a much larger spender than any society could actually support. This leads directly to a push for fascism by large banks/corporations, who rightfully find their best investment is to buy a Congress-critter or two. Governments love to be the rescue net for the masses (their voters) and having the ability to deficit spend gives them all the free reign the need to run pell mell towards a welfare state such as the one embodied by Greece. And holding actual power to benefit the banking/corporate elite via government mandated business and "friendly" regulation is a sure-fire way to let humans be, well, human. Corruption and graft are beneficial behaviors, and honesty gets no funding.
We exist under a system of rules that essentially benefit those at the top. The fix isn't to add even more rules (to be enforced by those same elites!) that attempt to force transfer from the top to the bottom. The fix is to insist on what any truly free individual should demand as his inalienable rights: sound un-cheatable money, small limited government, failure for any and all who chose to gamble recklessly, and a level playing field (single set of rules) to compete under.
If you mean crony capitalism when you say government overstepping, I agree with you. Unfortunately, there are no free markets in our economy so all the theories about how free markets should work are meaningless. Who do you think writes those rules that keep the 1% firmly in place. When they already own everything, taking away the police just allows them to suck up the little that remains. If free markets means no regulation, you are deluded or owned.
Silverado's right, you know. When the marginal cost of the new hire is greater than the marginal revenue he/she brings in, you really can't hire. Well, you could if your goal is to lose money and go out of business.
As an employer, you'll hire the amount of people needed to run your business. Not one more and not one less.
Prentending otherwise is an outright lie.
You also provided for the number of hours work for everyone. You did not want or have clock riders if you did your work well.
I used to work for a boss being a boss myself with a crew. I simply put the crew by shouting at them until they moved as one.
The lazies were reassigned until I had a core of happy workers moving along so well I did not have to yell anymore. Just be ready to serve them if something came up.
Here's how you fix the income gap via minimum wage; set the floor of min wage to where it is now, adjust annually against statistically accurate and publically vetted inflation/deflation figures with one twist: actual min wage for a given company is equal to 10% of the highest paid salary (including all benefits of all types) within that company, downside limited by the floor rate above.
CEOs are free to pay themselves whatever ridiculous sum they like, provided they pull the rest of their employees up with them. Success is shared. The officers of a company can be the brightest people in the world but without employees to actualize their brilliance and produce their products/services they are just smart people unable to meet demand without workers.
1969 was a lot different. U.S. companies faced fewer rivals; gasoline was very cheap; regulation did not add as many artificial costs to the price of doing business. So, more could go toward labor.
Also, as other comments here indicate, entry level work is now an important part of our country's education system. Students who don't learn in school are trained in that first job. Here, many of them learn for the first time, things like basic etiquette, cooperation, promptness, simple work skills, etc. Back in 1969 entry level workers probably came in with a better fundamental understanding of work. They were paid more because they were worth more than too many of today's young.
There was a time when entry level jobs provided job training. Now entry level jobs require you to be trained. Kind of a Catch-22.
And who do you think has been leading the charge towards training workers for future positions?