Most Americans Earn Less Than 1950 Minimum Wage Standard (REPOST)

[Jackinthebox]

I am reposting this because there seems to be an error/bug with the original. The thread still shows in the forum, but when I click on it, it takes my to a thread from 2003 called "gold" something or other. Unfortunately, I did not get to read a dozen or so replies there either.

Also, mods, my first thread totally vanished. I never got a reply to the mod I mailed about it. It was a health thread on food and obesity.

* * *


The good ol' days. We always hear about them from our parents and grandparents. Some of us were there and still look back with fond nostalgia to the heyday of American capitalism. The 1950's defined the American ideal. We had emerged from World War II as the richest, most powerful nation on the planet, and we were ready to cash in on our victory.

There was a suburban home with a white picket fence, a new car built from American steel sitting in the driveway, a regular 9-to-5 job, good schools for your children, and a good wife who managed the homefront with aplomb and a fresh baked apple pie. The American dream was not just a television show in black-and-white television re-runs, that was how we actually lived. It was a way of life that was attainable for just about anyone willing to work hard, and work hard we did.

Our parents and grandparents were no slackers. They had paid their dues through the most destructive war mankind had ever known, they had struggled through the misery of the Great Depression before that. They were grateful to be rewarded now with an honest day's pay for an honest day of work, and spiteful of those godless Communists who could promise only drudgery. Our own social contract worked out just fine. Our obligations to our neighbors and to our country were tempered by the personal liberty prescribed in our nation's Constitution. The harder we worked, the better life would be, and there were no free rides for anyone. The promise of freedom was never more clear. Each man would be made or broken on the basis of his very own efforts. And for the time-being, it was upheld by a government we still believed was for the people and by the people, serving the interests of the people.

Read more: http://mwwuamerica.blogspot.com/2013/03/90-of-americans-earn-less-than-1950.html#ixzz3LSSBA4If

 

[Toro]

I'm sympathetic that workers haven't shared in the gains of the past decade, but the methodology is wrong and the argument is false.

You do not adjust for productivity levels. This should be obvious. The idea that 90% of workers are worse off than they were 60 years ago is ridiculous.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Many of those same Americans consistently vote to kill the middle class their parents and grand parents worked so hard to build.

And the scary thing is, they know it.

 

[pinqy]

I am reposting this because there seems to be an error/bug with the original. The thread still shows in the forum, but when I click on it, it takes my to a thread from 2003 called "gold" something or other. Unfortunately, I did not get to read a dozen or so replies there either.

Also, mods, my first thread totally vanished. I never got a reply to the mod I mailed about it. It was a health thread on food and obesity.

* * *


The good ol' days. We always hear about them from our parents and grandparents. Some of us were there and still look back with fond nostalgia to the heyday of American capitalism. The 1950's defined the American ideal. We had emerged from World War II as the richest, most powerful nation on the planet, and we were ready to cash in on our victory.

There was a suburban home with a white picket fence, a new car built from American steel sitting in the driveway, a regular 9-to-5 job, good schools for your children, and a good wife who managed the homefront with aplomb and a fresh baked apple pie. The American dream was not just a television show in black-and-white television re-runs, that was how we actually lived. It was a way of life that was attainable for just about anyone willing to work hard, and work hard we did.

Our parents and grandparents were no slackers. They had paid their dues through the most destructive war mankind had ever known, they had struggled through the misery of the Great Depression before that. They were grateful to be rewarded now with an honest day's pay for an honest day of work, and spiteful of those godless Communists who could promise only drudgery. Our own social contract worked out just fine. Our obligations to our neighbors and to our country were tempered by the personal liberty prescribed in our nation's Constitution. The harder we worked, the better life would be, and there were no free rides for anyone. The promise of freedom was never more clear. Each man would be made or broken on the basis of his very own efforts. And for the time-being, it was upheld by a government we still believed was for the people and by the people, serving the interests of the people.

Read more: http://mwwuamerica.blogspot.com/2013/03/90-of-americans-earn-less-than-1950.html#ixzz3LSSBA4If

Here's the main flaw:

In 1950, the Federal minimum wage in the United States was set at 75-cents per hour. This meant that no matter what a person did for a living, according to national productivity standards for workers, their work was worth a minimum of 75 pennies for an hour worked, $30 for an average work week, or a little over $1560 a year. At that time, this was a bit more than the average cost of a brand new automobile.A worker could work all year, save every penny, and buy a brand new mid-grade car without taking out a loan.

A car in 1950 is not the same as a car in 2014. To actually compare, you have to add in seatbelts, automatic transmission, automatic locks, power steering, a more fuel efficient engine, am/cm radio with CD player, airbags, etc, etc. Looking at the CPI for new cars (which adjusts for quality change) the index was 41.1 annual average in 1950 and 144.834 for first half of 2014. A change of 252.4%. So that $1,510 1950 car (with standard 1950 features) would cost $5,321 now.Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

So… $5,321 divided by min wage of $7.25 is 734 hours. Just over 18 weeks of work.

You can't compare without looking at change in standard of living.

 

[Jackinthebox]

You can't compare without looking at change in standard of living.

I don't need all of those things in my car. Plus, the min wage worker today can't even afford a car at all, so there is no net increase in the standard of living for a very large portion of the working class. A hundred years ago we didn't have any electricity either. So yeah, you could say that has been a wonderful addition to boost our standard of living. But again, that does no good to someone who is sitting in a place where the power and the heat have been cut off. At least back in the day houses still usually had a fireplace. Today the poor will just freeze to death without government assistance.

And when I say poor, I mean the WORKING poor. Half of all people on welfare today have jobs.

It used to be that a young person could save up and go buy a car outright, after saving up for a year. Today, people are putting 8 year leases on cars, and STILL wind up getting repo'd.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Plus, the min wage worker today can't even afford a car at all,.

dear, $10 and hour with 2 people =$80k/year plus tax credits, free education and free health care means minimum wage makes you rich thanks to Republican capitalism. Were it not for the libsoviet influence on our economy we'd all be far richer still!!

Do you have the IQ to understand these basics?

 

[Jackinthebox]

. Plus, the min wage worker today can't even afford a car at all,.

dear, $10 and hour with 2 people =$80k/year plus tax credits, free education and free health care means minimum wage makes you rich thanks to Republican capitalism. Were it not for the libsoviet influence on our economy we'd all be far richer still!!

Do you have the IQ to understand these basics?

There is no reason we should have "free" anything. You obviously don't understand.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Plus, the min wage worker today can't even afford a car at all,.

dear, $10 and hour with 2 people =$80k/year plus tax credits, free education and free health care means minimum wage makes you rich thanks to Republican capitalism. Were it not for the libsoviet influence on our economy we'd all be far richer still!!

Do you have the IQ to understand these basics?

There is no reason we should have "free" anything. You obviously don't understand.

liberal govt provides free education and health care on top of EITC and $80K wages for those who earn minimum wage. our poor are actually rich.

 

[Jackinthebox]

liberal govt provides free education and health care on top of EITC and $80K wages for those who earn minimum wage. our poor are actually rich.

And what I am saying is that the government should not be paying for healthcare, for college, none of it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

liberal govt provides free education and health care on top of EITC and $80K wages for those who earn minimum wage. our poor are actually rich.

And what I am saying is that the government should not be paying for healthcare, for college, none of it.

conservatives and libertarians obviously agree. And???

 

[SteadyMercury]

At least back in the day houses still usually had a fireplace. Today the poor will just freeze to death without government assistance.

Come on now, houses of today are way better than "back in the day" they are far bigger and more energy efficient and home ownership rates are much higher than in the 50s.

Regarding fireplaces do you have actual numbers on fireplaces or are you just making things up? From this:
Cover story Buyers warm up to homes with fireplaces - Washington Times

"Sixty percent of new homes have at least one fireplace, compared with 36 percent of homes built in the early 1970s, the National Association of Home Builders reports. "

Sure that doesn't tell the story of the 50s back it would have to be a hell of a reversal from the 50s to 70s to back your claim.

It used to be that a young person could save up and go buy a car outright, after saving up for a year.

Hah no they couldn't. At least not if they wanted to do things like eat or have a roof over their head.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There is no reason we should have "free" anything. You obviously don't understand.

so does that make you liberal or conservative?

 

[SteadyMercury]

so does that make you liberal or conservative?

Why do you care so much, what is the obsession with those labels?

This is an economics forum, maybe you should go hang out in the politics forum with all the other brainless hyper-partisan retards who can only see the world in shades of political ideologies.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Come on now, houses of today are way better than "back in the day" they are far bigger and more energy efficient and home ownership rates are much higher than in the 50s.

Regarding fireplaces do you have actual numbers on fireplaces or are you just making things up? From this:
Cover story Buyers warm up to homes with fireplaces - Washington Times

"Sixty percent of new homes have at least one fireplace, compared with 36 percent of homes built in the early 1970s, the National Association of Home Builders reports. "

Sure that doesn't tell the story of the 50s back it would have to be a hell of a reversal from the 50s to 70s to back your claim.

Houses today are built like crap. I would take a house built a hundred years ago and maintained over some McMansion any day.

As far as fire places go, the point is that homes were far more independent and self sufficient in the past than they are today. Today, off the grid living is a novelty whereas in the past modern convenience was the novelty.

Hah no they couldn't. At least not if they wanted to do things like eat or have a roof over their head.

You missed the point entirely. If it was so impossible back then, it is only that much worse today with the cost of living far higher and the proce of a car nearly doubled, even after taking inflation into account. My father's generation, almost every single one of my aunts and uncles on both sides of my family bought a brand new car when they were still in high school, or just setting out for college, with their own money earned from part-time work. That is practically unheard of in this day and age for children of blue collar workers. I didn't buy my first new car until I was 26, and even then it was financed. Now if you want to take it a step back one more generation, to the 1950's. My grandfather built his own house with cash on the barrel head. No financing, no mortgage.

 

[Jackinthebox]

There is no reason we should have "free" anything. You obviously don't understand.

so does that make you liberal or conservative?

Neither. I don't toe the line for partisan rhetoric.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You can't compare without looking at change in standard of living.

I don't need all of those things in my car. Plus, the min wage worker today can't even afford a car at all, so there is no net increase in the standard of living for a very large portion of the working class. A hundred years ago we didn't have any electricity either. So yeah, you could say that has been a wonderful addition to boost our standard of living. But again, that does no good to someone who is sitting in a place where the power and the heat have been cut off. At least back in the day houses still usually had a fireplace. Today the poor will just freeze to death without government assistance.

And when I say poor, I mean the WORKING poor. Half of all people on welfare today have jobs.

It used to be that a young person could save up and go buy a car outright, after saving up for a year. Today, people are putting 8 year leases on cars, and STILL wind up getting repo'd.

Funny I had a car when I was making min wage.

I guess you never heard of buying a used car and learning how to maintain it yourself.

If you look up learned helplessness in the dictionary I bet you'll see your picture

 

[Skull Pilot]

Come on now, houses of today are way better than "back in the day" they are far bigger and more energy efficient and home ownership rates are much higher than in the 50s.

Regarding fireplaces do you have actual numbers on fireplaces or are you just making things up? From this:
Cover story Buyers warm up to homes with fireplaces - Washington Times

"Sixty percent of new homes have at least one fireplace, compared with 36 percent of homes built in the early 1970s, the National Association of Home Builders reports. "

Sure that doesn't tell the story of the 50s back it would have to be a hell of a reversal from the 50s to 70s to back your claim.

Houses today are built like crap. I would take a house built a hundred years ago and maintained over some McMansion any day.

As far as fire places go, the point is that homes were far more independent and self sufficient in the past than they are today. Today, off the grid living is a novelty whereas in the past modern convenience was the novelty.

Hah no they couldn't. At least not if they wanted to do things like eat or have a roof over their head.

You missed the point entirely. If it was so impossible back then, it is only that much worse today with the cost of living far higher and the proce of a car nearly doubled, even after taking inflation into account. My father's generation, almost every single one of my aunts and uncles on both sides of my family bought a brand new car when they were still in high school, or just setting out for college, with their own money earned from part-time work. That is practically unheard of in this day and age for children of blue collar workers. I didn't buy my first new car until I was 26, and even then it was financed. Now if you want to take it a step back one more generation, to the 1950's. My grandfather built his own house with cash on the barrel head. No financing, no mortgage.

You don't know Jack shit.

I own a 200 year old house and I am building a brand new home this year.

My old farmhouse is a bitch to maintain because there is no uniformity in the lumber dimensions or even the spacing of the studs.

My new home will be stronger, more energy efficient and easier to maintain.

And what is your fascination with buying a new car?

A new car is a sucker's purchase. You are much better off buying a 2 year old car with low mileage. At least you won't lose all the value when you drive off the lot.

You might be better off if you actually learned a little bit about money because I can tell you that more money won't help you unless if you don't know what to do with it

 

[Jackinthebox]

You can't compare without looking at change in standard of living.

I don't need all of those things in my car. Plus, the min wage worker today can't even afford a car at all, so there is no net increase in the standard of living for a very large portion of the working class. A hundred years ago we didn't have any electricity either. So yeah, you could say that has been a wonderful addition to boost our standard of living. But again, that does no good to someone who is sitting in a place where the power and the heat have been cut off. At least back in the day houses still usually had a fireplace. Today the poor will just freeze to death without government assistance.

And when I say poor, I mean the WORKING poor. Half of all people on welfare today have jobs.

It used to be that a young person could save up and go buy a car outright, after saving up for a year. Today, people are putting 8 year leases on cars, and STILL wind up getting repo'd.

Funny I had a car when I was making min wage.

I guess you never heard of buying a used car and learning how to maintain it yourself.

If you look up learned helplessness in the dictionary I bet you'll see your picture

A used car is not a new car. You missed the point. I am talking about loss of purchasing power and lower standard of living.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Come on now, houses of today are way better than "back in the day" they are far bigger and more energy efficient and home ownership rates are much higher than in the 50s.

Regarding fireplaces do you have actual numbers on fireplaces or are you just making things up? From this:
Cover story Buyers warm up to homes with fireplaces - Washington Times

"Sixty percent of new homes have at least one fireplace, compared with 36 percent of homes built in the early 1970s, the National Association of Home Builders reports. "

Sure that doesn't tell the story of the 50s back it would have to be a hell of a reversal from the 50s to 70s to back your claim.

Houses today are built like crap. I would take a house built a hundred years ago and maintained over some McMansion any day.

As far as fire places go, the point is that homes were far more independent and self sufficient in the past than they are today. Today, off the grid living is a novelty whereas in the past modern convenience was the novelty.

Hah no they couldn't. At least not if they wanted to do things like eat or have a roof over their head.

You missed the point entirely. If it was so impossible back then, it is only that much worse today with the cost of living far higher and the proce of a car nearly doubled, even after taking inflation into account. My father's generation, almost every single one of my aunts and uncles on both sides of my family bought a brand new car when they were still in high school, or just setting out for college, with their own money earned from part-time work. That is practically unheard of in this day and age for children of blue collar workers. I didn't buy my first new car until I was 26, and even then it was financed. Now if you want to take it a step back one more generation, to the 1950's. My grandfather built his own house with cash on the barrel head. No financing, no mortgage.

You don't know Jack shit.

I own a 200 year old house and I am building a brand new home this year.

My old farmhouse is a bitch to maintain because there is no uniformity in the lumber dimensions or even the spacing of the studs.

My new home will be stronger, more energy efficient and easier to maintain.

And what is your fascination with buying a new car?

A new car is a sucker's purchase. You are much better off buying a 2 year old car with low mileage. At least you won't lose all the value when you drive off the lot.

You might be better off if you actually learned a little bit about money because I can tell you that more money won't help you unless if you don't know what to do with it

You CAN build a good quality house today, but that is not typical construction. Building your own house is really the way to go if you don't want a particle board nightmare.

And again, you are missing the point about buying a car. Yes, a nearly new car is a wiser purchase than brand new. But that's not the point at all.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You can't compare without looking at change in standard of living.

I don't need all of those things in my car. Plus, the min wage worker today can't even afford a car at all, so there is no net increase in the standard of living for a very large portion of the working class. A hundred years ago we didn't have any electricity either. So yeah, you could say that has been a wonderful addition to boost our standard of living. But again, that does no good to someone who is sitting in a place where the power and the heat have been cut off. At least back in the day houses still usually had a fireplace. Today the poor will just freeze to death without government assistance.

And when I say poor, I mean the WORKING poor. Half of all people on welfare today have jobs.

It used to be that a young person could save up and go buy a car outright, after saving up for a year. Today, people are putting 8 year leases on cars, and STILL wind up getting repo'd.

Funny I had a car when I was making min wage.

I guess you never heard of buying a used car and learning how to maintain it yourself.

If you look up learned helplessness in the dictionary I bet you'll see your picture

A used car is not a new car. You missed the point. I am talking about loss of purchasing power and lower standard of living.

A new car is a waste of money.

I have never owned a new car and my standard of living is just fine