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

[Jackinthebox]

Given that my set of statistics are from 2013, I would suggest they are more relevant and more appropriate. Your argument falls apart.

Sorry.

No, it would just show how much change there has been in the min wage job market.

But like I said, it should make no difference how old or how educated a person is when it comes to a minimum wage job.

 

[Spare_change]

Sorry --- YOU said productivity was up 400% (nothing about per worker). I merely said that if you spread productivity across more workers, you get a more accurate parameter. The original article cited said that worker productivity has increased 400%. No proof of that was provided - it simply said it.

But, listen to what is said ... it does not say that each worker is 400% more productive ... it says that the worker community productivity has increased 400%. That's a hell of a lot different. By treating the worker community as a monolith - with no allowance for variance in the size of the worker community (to be sure, the word 'community' is mine) - presents a distorted picture.

Maybe you are not understanding what productivity actually means. You can have ten workers that 100% more productive than 100 workers. How many workers there are in America makes no difference. They are collectively more productive and more efficient than their 1950 counterpart. Much of this increased efficiency has actually come at the COST of jobs, not by adding new people to the workforce.

You're right --- I'm not understanding it, because the original cite didn't explain it. You are interpreting as you THINK it is ... I am interpreting it as I THINK it is. You think the productivity is a measurement per worker - that each worker is producing 400% more than before. I think the productivity is a measurement of output, and the output has increased 400%, without consideration of the number of workers it takes to produce the output.

Who knows who's right? But, as a minimum, it casts serious doubt on the accuracy of anything from the original cite.

 

[Spare_change]

Given that my set of statistics are from 2013, I would suggest they are more relevant and more appropriate. Your argument falls apart.

Sorry.

No, it would just show how much change there has been in the min wage job market.

But like I said, it should make no difference how old or how educated a person is when it comes to a minimum wage job.

You're right ... but I only cited those two statistics because they were the easiest for you to verify. All the rest of the statistics disagree significantly with your reference, as well. I guess i gotta believe the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Your argument is falling apart.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Min wage was 3.80 when I started working. I paid 92 cents a gallon for gas. That is 4.13 gallons of gas for an hour worked. Today, that same job pays the Federal min wage of $7.25/hr. Up until just a few months ago gas was was well over $4 a gallon. But if you calculate $3.90 a gallon, that is still only 1.85 gallons per hour of work.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Sorry --- YOU said productivity was up 400% (nothing about per worker). I merely said that if you spread productivity across more workers, you get a more accurate parameter. The original article cited said that worker productivity has increased 400%. No proof of that was provided - it simply said it.

But, listen to what is said ... it does not say that each worker is 400% more productive ... it says that the worker community productivity has increased 400%. That's a hell of a lot different. By treating the worker community as a monolith - with no allowance for variance in the size of the worker community (to be sure, the word 'community' is mine) - presents a distorted picture.

Maybe you are not understanding what productivity actually means. You can have ten workers that 100% more productive than 100 workers. How many workers there are in America makes no difference. They are collectively more productive and more efficient than their 1950 counterpart. Much of this increased efficiency has actually come at the COST of jobs, not by adding new people to the workforce.

You're right --- I'm not understanding it, because the original cite didn't explain it. You are interpreting as you THINK it is ... I am interpreting it as I THINK it is. You think the productivity is a measurement per worker - that each worker is producing 400% more than before. I think the productivity is a measurement of output, and the output has increased 400%, without consideration of the number of workers it takes to produce the output.

Who knows who's right? But, as a minimum, it casts serious doubt on the accuracy of anything from the original cite.

I don't think it casts doubt on the site. But you're right they don't specify. They don't have to specify though. The working class as a whole is more productive, but still seeing a proportionately smaller share of the profits from the increased productivity. It's not secret that jobs have been lost to automation, that workers are expected to perform more tasks for less money.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Given that my set of statistics are from 2013, I would suggest they are more relevant and more appropriate. Your argument falls apart.

Sorry.

No, it would just show how much change there has been in the min wage job market.

But like I said, it should make no difference how old or how educated a person is when it comes to a minimum wage job.

You're right ... but I only cited those two statistics because they were the easiest for you to verify. All the rest of the statistics disagree significantly with your reference, as well. I guess i gotta believe the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Your argument is falling apart.

The source cites and links BLS stats in the OP. But it also points out a discrepancy as well.


The BLS reports that in 2010 the mean hourly rate was $21.35 with a median figure of $16.27/hr. Annually this amounts to $44,410 and $33,840 respectively. Both figures fall well below our inflation-adjusted productivity-based 1950 minimum wage rate of $28.56/hr, yet these numbers both appear to be much higher than actual income when compared to figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. According to that agency, the mean annual income for Americans was $38,328 and the median was a mere $26,175. This means that in 2010, half of American workers earned less than $12.58/hr. That is 227% less than a minimum wage worker in 1950 when the increased 425% productivity is factored.

The discrepancy between the Bureau of Labor Statistics and those provided by the U.S. Census Bureau is roughly 130%. This means that actual wages are 1.3 times lower than what is reported by the BLS. According to them, the 90th percentile of workers earned less the $39.97/hr. But if we reduce that wage by 130% to be in line with the more accurate methodology of the Census Bureau, we can extrapolate that 90% American workers actually earned less than $27.98/hr. This is 58-cents per hour less than our adjusted 1950 minimum wage.

Read more: 90 of Americans Earn Less Than 1950 Minimum Wage Standard Minimum Wage Workers Union of America

 

[Spare_change]

Let me offer you an alternative view …

First, you have clearly postulated that you believe that the 'rich' are sucking off all the profits, and not sharing them with the workers. You have stated that you believe that a larger portion of the overall income should be shared with the workers. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Let’s set a baseline .... in order to fall into a specific percentage, you need to make a minimum level of income, as shown here:

Where Do You Rank as a Taxpayer -Kiplinger

Your complaint is that the growth-per-member of the top 1% far exceeds the growth-per-member of the bottom 50%.

However, I would suggest that the real growth has been in the top 10 and 25 % categories. You will notice that 2/3 of of all income went to those making $70K or more.

So, who are these top 25%? Clearly, they include the people you complain about – the Rockefellers, the Gates, the Buffetts of the world. But, they also include engineers, software designers, professional managers, bankers, etc., etc. In short, they represent the educated element of our workforce. We all have heard about software designers working for Google making $120K a year, or the mayor of most cities. How much do you think your insurance agent makes, or your lawyer? I think, if you do a comparison to other years, you will see that there is a transition of wealth into these upper middle class positions.

Why is that? Because we have changed – we are no longer a labor-centric economy. In order for us to maintain our lifestyle (and still be competitive on the international market), we need to do things more efficient, and more productively. In order to do that, we have to create – create more efficient processes, more efficient machines, and new and unique high tech products. We cannot produce $5 shirts that will compete with the international market. It just won’t happen.

So, over the past 30 years, the focus has shifted from laborers to creators – we are paying our creators more and more, because they are producing more and more income. The software engineers who came up with the Apple IPhone 6 generated more money than a factory of tire makers. Even the car is becoming more and more technically advanced, using things created by the creators – our more educated work force.

Which leads us to the real problem – our work force needs to be more creative, more innovative, more educated. BUT … our education system is letting us down. We are using 1950s techniques to train 1950s workers, when what we need is 2010 creators. The sophistication of the productive processes are outgaining the product of our education system.

Fifty years ago, if you got a high school diploma, you could find a decent job, you could create a career, and you could advance in life. Today, a high school diploma gets you a low-end job making fries. We have an under-educated work force to meet our needs.

Just a thought ….

 

[Jackinthebox]

Fifty years ago, if you got a high school diploma, you could find a decent job, you could create a career, and you could advance in life. Today, a high school diploma gets you a low-end job making fries. We have an under-educated work force to meet our needs.

Just a thought ….

You are missing a few key points here though. First, that there are many educated people who can't get a job in their field. And I am not talking about people with a degree in liberal arts or some nonsense. But things like engineering. The school bus driver who comes through my neighborhood to pick up special needs students makes $9/hr, per diem. Now not only is this a specialized job in itself which requires trade training and professional licensing, but he was an engineer making almost $200k per year up until about two years ago now. I first met him about six months after he lost his job. He picked up this job just as something to get by temporarily. In the meantime he has lost his house, his medical coverage, and his wife with the loss of medical coverage. (She died because they could not afford her specialized treatment.) He hasn't has a single sit-down interview in his field since his original career ended with a layoff. That is just ONE example of probably hundreds that I could give.

The country club I used to go to was filled with educated professionals from many fields. IBM has been a major presence in our region since the 1950's, but what was once the IBM country club, had to open to the public in order to stay afloat as pay scales slid, and major layoffs happened. Software developers, engineers, upper level corporate managers, you name it all came to this country club. My part of the state even saw a major influx of professionals from NYC in the last 20 years. Yet more and more of these professionals lost their jobs and wound up as retail managers, bus drivers, laborers, failing entrepreneurs, and outright unemployed. So much so that membership in my country club deteriorated to the point that even the country club itself became a failed business venture and went under. The people who went to this club, the old "upper middle class" as we were known, wound up taking a major step down and for the most part, never went back to work in their professional career paths. Certainly not at the pay scale that was once enough to include a country club membership and a BMW.

My uncle was a bank manager. A chief officer actually, in a what was once a prestigious regional bank, that is GONE now. He tried to kill himself when the place folded, then had a heart attack about a year after that. He has been a shut in now for years because of bad health stemming from his nervous breakdown.

Now to the SECOND point I wanted to make.

There is no reason why the fry cook or the person ringing out your groceries should be making any less than their counterpart in the 1950's. If things are really so much better in this country, they would be paid MORE, not less. When I first entered the workplace, it was at a supermarket where my father had worked when I was born, and where my aunt had made a career. At the time, it seemed reasonable to me that I could make a career out of it myself if I just put in my time like my aunt had done. My father didn't bother to stay there, and took a risk on a career in the culinary arts. My grandparents were restaurant owners, and he had grown up in the business. Seeing the restaurant business from behind the scenes myself though, I thought that just putting in my time at the grocery store seemed a lot more reliable. There were some years and some jobs where my father made HUGE money, and rubbed elbows with celebrities and so forth. Other years, we exchanged canned goods as Christmas gifts. I didn't want to live like that, didn't want my kids to grow up like that, so I seriously considered just putting in my time there at the grocery store like my aunt had done. She managed to own a home, had a swimming pool, never had to move, and raised kids all on her own income. It was the sort of mediocrity I might have been content with. It's a damn good thing I didn't go that route though. One of my exes decided to go that route, and she can't even support herself on her income as the lead cashier at the supermarket, much less a family. So there she is working full time, being paid even MORE than a typical Wal-Mart worker because she works in a union shop, and she STILL has to turn to welfare assistance.

There is NO reason why ANYONE, working ANY job, should be paid less than what is needed to get by on. For a single person, at a national average for basic living expenses, that figure was about $36k annual in 2012. If a single person was making less than that, they were at serious risk of winding up on welfare, or at least turning to subsidy programs of some sort in order to get by.

So, by your own numbers there, HALF of all Americans taxpayers are actually living in poverty, or at serious risk of falling into poverty. The actual poverty level that the government sets, falls well below a practical standard. Was that the case in 1950? Certainly not. You could go out and get a job as a grocery clerk or a salesperson at Macy's or at a factory or and get by just fine. Well enough to raise a family on even, but certainly enough to get by on as a single person. That is not at all the case today. Many people are not cut out for higher education, aren't cut our to own their own business, aren't cut our for white collar jobs. Not because they are stupid or lazy, but simply because that is not their aptitude, and not where they would be happy.

To jump back to my aunt again for a moment, she was like a community icon with all the years she put in there at the grocery store. She loved her job, loved the people, loved the stability. She loved working close to the schools her kids went to, she loved being home with the kids when they got home from school, even though she worked full time everyday. Her schedule was steady. Her pay was less than a lot of professionals out there at the time, but it was enough to get by on. She didn't feel the need to have some school validate her existence, and she didn't feel the need to work 90 hours a week to get ahead and "prove" herself to some company that would just wind up folding or laying her off in the long run anyway. After she retired from the supermarket and her kids were grown, she went and got a PhD in history, and teaches an art history class now at the community college. The funny thing is, she has more money problems now than she ever did when she was working at the grocery store.

Anyway. I am rambling. But you can't honestly believe that the middle class is stronger and better off today than in the past. Jobs that once supported a middle class lifestyle aren't enough to keep people off of welfare now. And jobs that were once part of the upper class, like bank managers, business owners, business managers, technology specialists, now all of those people barely make enough to actually hold on to a middle class lifestyle.

The guy that I bought my chain of movie theaters from lived in a HUGE mansion, had a fleet of collectible cars, a yacht, and an airplane. He lived a lavish lifestyle and didn't have half the headaches and worry that I have had in recent years financially. And I don't just own movie theaters. I also own restaurants, gas stations, rental properties, and so forth. I live in a condo and drive a used car.

 

[Jackinthebox]

 

[SteadyMercury]

The inflation calculator alone does not accurately represent a decline in purchasing power for one thing.

That is exactly what it measures.

Secondly, your argument is a red herring. You cannot disprove the fact that I would only earn about has as much gasoline for an hour worked today as the first job I had as a teenager, working at the grocery store.

And you cannot prove your anecdotal experience was representative as a whole for cost to buy gas for Americans. My argument using inflation adjusted price of gas, wages, and avg mileage is a much better picture than Jackinthebox's memories of childhood.

 

[SteadyMercury]

You didn't show anything about cars per worker. You showed cars per capita.

Denial is a beautiful thing. Last row, which basically crushes all this noise you've made about people having more cars. It isn't necessity if there are more cars than workers.

 

[SteadyMercury]

You cannot take a chart with loosely defined terms of "inner" and "outter" suburbs to prove availability of public transportation in 1950 vs. 2014, you'd also need to show investment in public transit. Below shows public transit usage has increased, we don't have percentages versus population but it sure tells a different story than your "inner" verus "outter' graph and somethat actually measuring public transportation is far more useful to prove availability of transportation.

 

[SteadyMercury]

It is often argued that low wage jobs are "meant" for students or folks who are somehow disqualified from making a living wage simple because of age or social status.

Wow talk about red herring, I argued no such thing.

You said an employer needs to pay $17/hour so employees can afford to live. I pointed out the 16 year old kid working at Subway clearly doesn't need that, and in response you are arguing against someone talking about who the jobs are meant for.

Forgetting, for a moment, that today even high school students are forced to quit school in order to support their families, lets have a look at the facts.

Heh yeah people quitting school never happened back in the 1950s.

 

[SteadyMercury]

You can't say growth per worker would be less, when growth per worker has increased by over 400%, while wages have stagnated and DECREASED, and in no way kept up with productivity.

You are continuing to try to argue using dishonesty. It has been proven repeatedly in this thread that compared to the 1950s wages have increased in both absolute and real dollars, yet you are content to keep telling the same lie over and over.

Again, upper limit of bottom 4 quintiles, using 2013 dollars:

1950
Lowest Quintile = 15k
2nd Quintile = 25k
3rd Quintile = 33k
4th Quintile = 45k

2013
Lowest Quintile = 29k
2nd Quintile = 51k
3rd Quintile = 78k
4th Quintile = 121k

Per capita income in 2004 dollars:

1950 Male = 17k
1950 Female = 6k

2004 Male = 31k
2004 Female = 18k

Red herring.

Irony.

 

[SteadyMercury]

I was using my own experience, in my own lifetime, where the worker has lost ground on share of income expenditure on a necessity.

And this is the problem with your arguments, again and again. You say something that you pull up from your fond memories, then a look at real numbers doesn't match.

Anecdotes of one guy isn't data to prove a trend.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Min wage was 3.80 when I started working. I paid 92 cents a gallon for gas. That is 4.13 gallons of gas for an hour worked. Today, that same job pays the Federal min wage of $7.25/hr. Up until just a few months ago gas was was well over $4 a gallon. But if you calculate $3.90 a gallon, that is still only 1.85 gallons per hour of work.

Two problems with this.

1. Gas is volatile, but it sure wasn't "well over $4 a gallon" as an average in the US. I know, your personal experience might be that but better to look at actual numbers instead of your anecdotes that get proven wrong with every post.

Last two years it peaked at $3.79 nationwide and averaged closer to $3.50

2. Average mileage on a modern car is about double.

 

[KissMy]

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.

Fireplaces just suck money out of your pockets, the heat out of your home, needs chimney sweep & cause smoke damage. Only wood stoves are practical because closing the doors & vents stops the air flow, no chimney sweep, they put out lots of heat, can incinerate your trash, heat your water & you can cook on them.

 

[pinqy]

Given that my set of statistics are from 2013, I would suggest they are more relevant and more appropriate. Your argument falls apart.

Sorry.

No, it would just show how much change there has been in the min wage job market.

But like I said, it should make no difference how old or how educated a person is when it comes to a minimum wage job.

You're right ... but I only cited those two statistics because they were the easiest for you to verify. All the rest of the statistics disagree significantly with your reference, as well. I guess i gotta believe the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Your argument is falling apart.

The source cites and links BLS stats in the OP. But it also points out a discrepancy as well.


The BLS reports that in 2010 the mean hourly rate was $21.35 with a median figure of $16.27/hr. Annually this amounts to $44,410 and $33,840 respectively. Both figures fall well below our inflation-adjusted productivity-based 1950 minimum wage rate of $28.56/hr, yet these numbers both appear to be much higher than actual income when compared to figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. According to that agency, the mean annual income for Americans was $38,328 and the median was a mere $26,175. This means that in 2010, half of American workers earned less than $12.58/hr. That is 227% less than a minimum wage worker in 1950 when the increased 425% productivity is factored.

The discrepancy between the Bureau of Labor Statistics and those provided by the U.S. Census Bureau is roughly 130%. This means that actual wages are 1.3 times lower than what is reported by the BLS. According to them, the 90th percentile of workers earned less the $39.97/hr. But if we reduce that wage by 130% to be in line with the more accurate methodology of the Census Bureau, we can extrapolate that 90% American workers actually earned less than $27.98/hr. This is 58-cents per hour less than our adjusted 1950 minimum wage.

Read more: 90 of Americans Earn Less Than 1950 Minimum Wage Standard Minimum Wage Workers Union of America

The discrepency is because the BLS measure of hourly and weekly wages are from the Current Employment Survey, which is a measure of payroll employment and exlcudes agriculture, the self-employed and others.
The Census figures are either from the Current Population Survey or the American Community Survey and measure total income from everyone (those two different surveys don't match up with each other either, due to methodological and time period differences).

 

[SteadyMercury]

Fireplaces just suck money out of your pockets, the heat out of your home, needs chimney sweep & cause smoke damage.

Heavens no, they are an icon of a bygone era and the one true indicator of a happy population.

Studies show that when people had fireplaces suicide rates were 0%, crime was unheard of, everyone's uncle had five cars that never broke down, and unicorns strode boldly across meadows of poppies offering free rides to children. I recall happily swimming in lakes of fudge and shaking money trees for spare change before sliding across the rainbow home to sit around our fireplace and lay sleepily while the grownups would talk about how perfect and easy life was.

 

[Spare_change]

Fireplaces just suck money out of your pockets, the heat out of your home, needs chimney sweep & cause smoke damage.

Heavens no, they are an icon of a bygone era and the one true indicator of a happy population.

Studies show that when people had fireplaces suicide rates were 0%, crime was unheard of, everyone's uncle had five cars that never broke down, and unicorns strode boldly across meadows of poppies offering free rides to children. I recall happily swimming in lakes of fudge and shaking money trees for spare change before sliding across the rainbow home to sit around our fireplace and lay sleepily while the grownups would talk about how perfect and easy life was.

"I recall happily swimming in lakes of fudge and shaking money trees for spare change ..."

AND I was damn appreciative, too !!!