‘Housing for All’: Democrats push for big government response to soaring rents

[Markle]

No, I actually have arguments not just fake news and fallacy. Of course I believe my arguments; I resort to the fewest fallacy just for that reason; unlike the fake news, right wing.

Say the minimum wage today in City A is $7.50 per hour and your fantasy wish for $15.00 an hour is adopted. That's a 100% increase, right?

What happens to the worker earning $15.00 per hour after your wish is adopted? What happens then?

Historically, His pay will also increase

Which will leave the person now making $15.00 per hour after 100% raise (I've given myself that rate of a raise but no employer has ever been so generous) still at the bottom of the ladder so it still will not be enough to support a person in the manner in which they'd like to become accustomed.

 

[Markle]

Perhaps in a small population as in Switzerland which has 8.4 million, it might work, we don't know. But, the US has 330 million, that's an entirely different animal.
Also, do you think our politicians would turn their backs to the people who blew through their UI. Not going to happen, and when the crack in the dam appears, you know what happens next.

Which is why the terms would have to be unconditional. UI is a leftist idea, so I say let's meet them halfway and then see how much they support it.

Our programs now take from the working and give to the non-working. UI would be taking from the working and giving to all. As a person who is the giver, I wouldn't mind being a giver and taker for a while. I get so sick of giving and watching the takers walking the streets or driving along the highways while I'm working.

If you really weigh the benefits, it makes so much more sense to replace our social programs with UI. It would inspire more people to work, it would eliminate fraud which costs us billions every year with our social programs, it would disable Democrats from telling people how the Republicans are going to take away this or take away that, it would allow people of different classes to live in peace, it could solve our never-ending problem of medical care and college tuition. It would solve most of the problems we have in this country today.

Things always look better on paper than when its applied.
Especially, when it comes to government application.

This is true, but what we're doing now certainly isn't working. We are putting our children and grandchildren in debt, creating a government dependent society, encouraging lower income people to breed at a much higher rate than the working, and the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, and turning Americans against each other socially and politically.

I would be willing to try it out. At least I could advance myself instead of advancing the users who never advance at all. As a society that rewards people for being irresponsible, IU would do the opposite which would reward people for being responsible. I can't see how it could be much worse than it is now.

How would getting a check from the government, for doing nothing, make me more responsible?

Because that check is all you get. You don't get HUD, you don't get food stamps, you don't get Medicaid. In other words, you couldn't afford all those things with just 18 grand a year or 36 a year for a couple. You would have to work at least part-time to make ends meet. If you wanted children, you would make sure to only have as many as your income allowed just like working people. Unlike today where the more kids you have, the more you get from government, there is no way you could have four kids today like people do on social programs.

The problem with poverty in the US is it can't be solved when we encourage the poor to create more poor people. Again, the apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree. In our current system, welfare people are having large families bringing in more welfare people while working people are having two children or less. Of course you can't solve poverty that way. You are producing more lowlifes than workers.

If it's "universal income" everyone gets a check. The last three decades I worked I earned well into six figures. So you write a check to the government for $30,000 and after the government overhead, I get a no questions asked check for say $12,000.00 in twelve equal installments per month. So that year, instead of earning say, $150,000. I make $162,000. So I pay more in taxes so I might, as I do, watch my income and maybe cut back rather than pay a jump in taxes.

How is giving sommeone a no questions asked check, discouraging them from creating more people? What have they got to do during the day?

 

[danielpalos]

No, I actually have arguments not just fake news and fallacy. Of course I believe my arguments; I resort to the fewest fallacy just for that reason; unlike the fake news, right wing.

Say the minimum wage today in City A is $7.50 per hour and your fantasy wish for $15.00 an hour is adopted. That's a 100% increase, right?

What happens to the worker earning $15.00 per hour after your wish is adopted? What happens then?

Historically, His pay will also increase

Which will leave the person now making $15.00 per hour after 100% raise (I've given myself that rate of a raise but no employer has ever been so generous) still at the bottom of the ladder so it still will not be enough to support a person in the manner in which they'd like to become accustomed.

The right wing like to plead so specially, in a vacuum.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, by comparison.

 

[danielpalos]

Which is why the terms would have to be unconditional. UI is a leftist idea, so I say let's meet them halfway and then see how much they support it.

Our programs now take from the working and give to the non-working. UI would be taking from the working and giving to all. As a person who is the giver, I wouldn't mind being a giver and taker for a while. I get so sick of giving and watching the takers walking the streets or driving along the highways while I'm working.

If you really weigh the benefits, it makes so much more sense to replace our social programs with UI. It would inspire more people to work, it would eliminate fraud which costs us billions every year with our social programs, it would disable Democrats from telling people how the Republicans are going to take away this or take away that, it would allow people of different classes to live in peace, it could solve our never-ending problem of medical care and college tuition. It would solve most of the problems we have in this country today.

Things always look better on paper than when its applied.
Especially, when it comes to government application.

This is true, but what we're doing now certainly isn't working. We are putting our children and grandchildren in debt, creating a government dependent society, encouraging lower income people to breed at a much higher rate than the working, and the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, and turning Americans against each other socially and politically.

I would be willing to try it out. At least I could advance myself instead of advancing the users who never advance at all. As a society that rewards people for being irresponsible, IU would do the opposite which would reward people for being responsible. I can't see how it could be much worse than it is now.

How would getting a check from the government, for doing nothing, make me more responsible?

Because that check is all you get. You don't get HUD, you don't get food stamps, you don't get Medicaid. In other words, you couldn't afford all those things with just 18 grand a year or 36 a year for a couple. You would have to work at least part-time to make ends meet. If you wanted children, you would make sure to only have as many as your income allowed just like working people. Unlike today where the more kids you have, the more you get from government, there is no way you could have four kids today like people do on social programs.

The problem with poverty in the US is it can't be solved when we encourage the poor to create more poor people. Again, the apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree. In our current system, welfare people are having large families bringing in more welfare people while working people are having two children or less. Of course you can't solve poverty that way. You are producing more lowlifes than workers.

If it's "universal income" everyone gets a check. The last three decades I worked I earned well into six figures. So you write a check to the government for $30,000 and after the government overhead, I get a no questions asked check for say $12,000.00 in twelve equal installments per month. So that year, instead of earning say, $150,000. I make $162,000. So I pay more in taxes so I might, as I do, watch my income and maybe cut back rather than pay a jump in taxes.

How is giving sommeone a no questions asked check, discouraging them from creating more people? What have they got to do during the day?

anything else. with unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed; a person could "retrench and retool", and then re-enter the job market, at their own convenience.

wage slavery is what the right wing prefers, not the left.

 

[Markle]

PEOPLE ARE SO F*CKING STUPID.
FACT: There are more empty homes in America than there are homeless.
Obviously the problem is NOT rent cost.

But people don't wanna rehab a house and rent or live in it anymore, they want a new house in a subdivision with an HOA n stuff.

The big banks grabbed up all the foreclosures when the housing bubble burst, and the government helped them do it.

BoA should have been allowed to fail.

Their assets should have been seized.............as payment for their miserable GAMBLING that nearly brought down a country.......Then the assets should have been sold on the market at or below cost............

But they were allowed to keep all the papers of the Americans who lost their jobs because of their gambling problem. A gambling problem that went postal after they were allowed to self regulate.

GAO Fed Investigation | Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform And Consumer Protection Act | Federal Reserve System

The banks repaid their loans, early and with interest.

It was government regulations, compliments of Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd.

 

[Markle]

No, I actually have arguments not just fake news and fallacy. Of course I believe my arguments; I resort to the fewest fallacy just for that reason; unlike the fake news, right wing.

Say the minimum wage today in City A is $7.50 per hour and your fantasy wish for $15.00 an hour is adopted. That's a 100% increase, right?

What happens to the worker earning $15.00 per hour after your wish is adopted? What happens then?

Historically, His pay will also increase

Which will leave the person now making $15.00 per hour after 100% raise (I've given myself that rate of a raise but no employer has ever been so generous) still at the bottom of the ladder so it still will not be enough to support a person in the manner in which they'd like to become accustomed.

The right wing like to plead so specially, in a vacuum.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, by comparison.

Once again, what is the average income of a household where one worker is earning minimum wage?

 

[danielpalos]

No, I actually have arguments not just fake news and fallacy. Of course I believe my arguments; I resort to the fewest fallacy just for that reason; unlike the fake news, right wing.

Say the minimum wage today in City A is $7.50 per hour and your fantasy wish for $15.00 an hour is adopted. That's a 100% increase, right?

What happens to the worker earning $15.00 per hour after your wish is adopted? What happens then?

Historically, His pay will also increase

Which will leave the person now making $15.00 per hour after 100% raise (I've given myself that rate of a raise but no employer has ever been so generous) still at the bottom of the ladder so it still will not be enough to support a person in the manner in which they'd like to become accustomed.

The right wing like to plead so specially, in a vacuum.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, by comparison.

Once again, what is the average income of a household where one worker is earning minimum wage?

fifteen dollars an hour beats fourteen dollars an hour, usually.

are you claiming an Individual won't be able to afford housing somewhere, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

or,

do you simply argue in a vacuum of special pleading and expect to be taken seriously.

 

[Markle]

No, I actually have arguments not just fake news and fallacy. Of course I believe my arguments; I resort to the fewest fallacy just for that reason; unlike the fake news, right wing.

Say the minimum wage today in City A is $7.50 per hour and your fantasy wish for $15.00 an hour is adopted. That's a 100% increase, right?

What happens to the worker earning $15.00 per hour after your wish is adopted? What happens then?

Historically, His pay will also increase

Which will leave the person now making $15.00 per hour after 100% raise (I've given myself that rate of a raise but no employer has ever been so generous) still at the bottom of the ladder so it still will not be enough to support a person in the manner in which they'd like to become accustomed.

The right wing like to plead so specially, in a vacuum.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, by comparison.

How is my post "in a vacuum"?

If Social Services are $14.00 per hour, something you've never supported with a reliable source and link. What would it go to if all wages increased 100%?

 

[danielpalos]

No, I actually have arguments not just fake news and fallacy. Of course I believe my arguments; I resort to the fewest fallacy just for that reason; unlike the fake news, right wing.

Say the minimum wage today in City A is $7.50 per hour and your fantasy wish for $15.00 an hour is adopted. That's a 100% increase, right?

What happens to the worker earning $15.00 per hour after your wish is adopted? What happens then?

Historically, His pay will also increase

Which will leave the person now making $15.00 per hour after 100% raise (I've given myself that rate of a raise but no employer has ever been so generous) still at the bottom of the ladder so it still will not be enough to support a person in the manner in which they'd like to become accustomed.

The right wing like to plead so specially, in a vacuum.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, by comparison.

How is my post "in a vacuum"?

If Social Services are $14.00 per hour, something you've never supported with a reliable source and link. What would it go to if all wages increased 100%?

who cares. you can't support such a scenario, either.

And, what do You believe the reason is for a Fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

 

[Markle]

Say the minimum wage today in City A is $7.50 per hour and your fantasy wish for $15.00 an hour is adopted. That's a 100% increase, right?

What happens to the worker earning $15.00 per hour after your wish is adopted? What happens then?

Historically, His pay will also increase

Which will leave the person now making $15.00 per hour after 100% raise (I've given myself that rate of a raise but no employer has ever been so generous) still at the bottom of the ladder so it still will not be enough to support a person in the manner in which they'd like to become accustomed.

The right wing like to plead so specially, in a vacuum.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, by comparison.

Once again, what is the average income of a household where one worker is earning minimum wage?

fifteen dollars an hour beats fourteen dollars an hour, usually.

are you claiming an Individual won't be able to afford housing somewhere, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

or,

do you simply argue in a vacuum of special pleading and expect to be taken seriously.

So in your fantasy world, your cost for "social services" would remain at $14.00 per hour when all other wages are doubled. Got it!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Which is why the terms would have to be unconditional. UI is a leftist idea, so I say let's meet them halfway and then see how much they support it.

Our programs now take from the working and give to the non-working. UI would be taking from the working and giving to all. As a person who is the giver, I wouldn't mind being a giver and taker for a while. I get so sick of giving and watching the takers walking the streets or driving along the highways while I'm working.

If you really weigh the benefits, it makes so much more sense to replace our social programs with UI. It would inspire more people to work, it would eliminate fraud which costs us billions every year with our social programs, it would disable Democrats from telling people how the Republicans are going to take away this or take away that, it would allow people of different classes to live in peace, it could solve our never-ending problem of medical care and college tuition. It would solve most of the problems we have in this country today.

Things always look better on paper than when its applied.
Especially, when it comes to government application.

This is true, but what we're doing now certainly isn't working. We are putting our children and grandchildren in debt, creating a government dependent society, encouraging lower income people to breed at a much higher rate than the working, and the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, and turning Americans against each other socially and politically.

I would be willing to try it out. At least I could advance myself instead of advancing the users who never advance at all. As a society that rewards people for being irresponsible, IU would do the opposite which would reward people for being responsible. I can't see how it could be much worse than it is now.

How would getting a check from the government, for doing nothing, make me more responsible?

Because that check is all you get. You don't get HUD, you don't get food stamps, you don't get Medicaid. In other words, you couldn't afford all those things with just 18 grand a year or 36 a year for a couple. You would have to work at least part-time to make ends meet. If you wanted children, you would make sure to only have as many as your income allowed just like working people. Unlike today where the more kids you have, the more you get from government, there is no way you could have four kids today like people do on social programs.

The problem with poverty in the US is it can't be solved when we encourage the poor to create more poor people. Again, the apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree. In our current system, welfare people are having large families bringing in more welfare people while working people are having two children or less. Of course you can't solve poverty that way. You are producing more lowlifes than workers.

If it's "universal income" everyone gets a check. The last three decades I worked I earned well into six figures. So you write a check to the government for $30,000 and after the government overhead, I get a no questions asked check for say $12,000.00 in twelve equal installments per month. So that year, instead of earning say, $150,000. I make $162,000. So I pay more in taxes so I might, as I do, watch my income and maybe cut back rather than pay a jump in taxes.

How is giving sommeone a no questions asked check, discouraging them from creating more people? What have they got to do during the day?

First of all the check would be tax free. Secondly, let's say a couple each getting an 18K check (36K combined) want to have children. If they can make it with one child on 36K, then good for them. If they can't, they do what working people do and limit the size of family based on their income. If they can afford 2 children, again, fine, but you don't get a dime more than the 36K.

It would be nearly impossible to have three children on just the 36K no matter where you live. Either that or you would be living very poorly. So women or couples would naturally limit the amount of children they have unlike today where the more children you have, the more you get from government.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Our pay recovered and has increased a little. But energy jobs have been booming......and were why Texas did so well after the crash.......Energy and oil is a driving factor in this country and puts a lot of money in circulation..........It still is.............

To me, pay still sucks

I remember the booming 90s under Clinton. Got pay increases of 4-6 percent a year

This economy is supposed to be the best in a generation. Workers are lucky to see a 2 percent raise

I don’t see worker salaries much higher than they were in the 90 s

Aye, I also enjoyed those years.
Trouble was though RW, it was a mirage.
Robert Rubin/Larry Summers/Alan Greenspan devised the "debt as income" economy.
Without a doubt it created a massive growth in the economy and lead to the 80's booming yuppie culture of materialism and "shopping as entertainment".
Trouble was, of course, it had to end. People were spending money they haven't made yet. Buying homes that were way out of their sane reach. It was common for folfs to be walking around with $15-$30,000 in credit card debt alone. All that buying created the "Reagan/Clinton boom". A Castle Made of Sand.
And this also created Corporatism. Which is destroying America, little by little, day by day.

I think today the problem is college debt for young folks. When I was a young man, few went to college. Out of a class of 40 high school students, perhaps 10 went to college and Lord knows how many graduated.

Today you are a lost soul without education, but that education will set you back ten years of repaying loans.

My nephew graduated with a Masters and has a great paying job, but paying off his debt is something he's counting on until his mid 30's or later, and that's on top of my sisters loans that she took out.

I paid for my college with tutoring and a restaurant job. Yeah, that's messed up, too.

College costs are 5x what they were.

I paid for college making $2.10 an hour summer jobs.
Price of college has escalated while minimum wage has not

So should minimum wage increase simply because college got more expensive?

 

[danielpalos]

Historically, His pay will also increase

Which will leave the person now making $15.00 per hour after 100% raise (I've given myself that rate of a raise but no employer has ever been so generous) still at the bottom of the ladder so it still will not be enough to support a person in the manner in which they'd like to become accustomed.

The right wing like to plead so specially, in a vacuum.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, by comparison.

Once again, what is the average income of a household where one worker is earning minimum wage?

fifteen dollars an hour beats fourteen dollars an hour, usually.

are you claiming an Individual won't be able to afford housing somewhere, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

or,

do you simply argue in a vacuum of special pleading and expect to be taken seriously.

So in your fantasy world, your cost for "social services" would remain at $14.00 per hour when all other wages are doubled. Got it!

nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage means we don't have to subsidize labor at public expense, to bailout employers who get tax breaks for simply paying wages.

 

[Markle]

We had to take pay cuts after the crash........And I watched neighbors who had lost their jobs.....Packing up and leaving with their kids.......Good people who lost everything..................

It was sickening to watch..........Pisses me off til this day...........

Workers still haven’t recovered from that pay cut

Our pay recovered and has increased a little. But energy jobs have been booming......and were why Texas did so well after the crash.......Energy and oil is a driving factor in this country and puts a lot of money in circulation..........It still is.............

To me, pay still sucks

I remember the booming 90s under Clinton. Got pay increases of 4-6 percent a year

This economy is supposed to be the best in a generation. Workers are lucky to see a 2 percent raise

I don’t see worker salaries much higher than they were in the 90 s

Aye, I also enjoyed those years.
Trouble was though RW, it was a mirage.
Robert Rubin/Larry Summers/Alan Greenspan devised the "debt as income" economy.
Without a doubt it created a massive growth in the economy and lead to the 80's booming yuppie culture of materialism and "shopping as entertainment".
Trouble was, of course, it had to end. People were spending money they haven't made yet. Buying homes that were way out of their sane reach. It was common for folfs to be walking around with $15-$30,000 in credit card debt alone. All that buying created the "Reagan/Clinton boom". A Castle Made of Sand.
And this also created Corporatism. Which is destroying America, little by little, day by day.

All I know is, (And me and the fellers talk about this too)

When I was a young man, and just starting to make my way, the guy I was apprenticing with taught me this:

1 week's pay should pay for your housing.

The next week's pay should cover utilities and food.

Then you have 2 week's pay out of every month to save or spend, your choice.


I feel sad that it simply is not that way these days. It's still the same for me, but not for youth just getting out of high school. They have to spend more than 1 week's pay for housing. That's not right.

They somehow got robbed of the freedoms I had, how did this happen?

It's definitely not right.

I never expected to get my own apartment when I graduated high school. That was 1963 and kids today just getting out of should not expect to either.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Workers still haven’t recovered from that pay cut

Our pay recovered and has increased a little. But energy jobs have been booming......and were why Texas did so well after the crash.......Energy and oil is a driving factor in this country and puts a lot of money in circulation..........It still is.............

To me, pay still sucks

I remember the booming 90s under Clinton. Got pay increases of 4-6 percent a year

This economy is supposed to be the best in a generation. Workers are lucky to see a 2 percent raise

I don’t see worker salaries much higher than they were in the 90 s

Aye, I also enjoyed those years.
Trouble was though RW, it was a mirage.
Robert Rubin/Larry Summers/Alan Greenspan devised the "debt as income" economy.
Without a doubt it created a massive growth in the economy and lead to the 80's booming yuppie culture of materialism and "shopping as entertainment".
Trouble was, of course, it had to end. People were spending money they haven't made yet. Buying homes that were way out of their sane reach. It was common for folfs to be walking around with $15-$30,000 in credit card debt alone. All that buying created the "Reagan/Clinton boom". A Castle Made of Sand.
And this also created Corporatism. Which is destroying America, little by little, day by day.

All I know is, (And me and the fellers talk about this too)

When I was a young man, and just starting to make my way, the guy I was apprenticing with taught me this:

1 week's pay should pay for your housing.

The next week's pay should cover utilities and food.

Then you have 2 week's pay out of every month to save or spend, your choice.


I feel sad that it simply is not that way these days. It's still the same for me, but not for youth just getting out of high school. They have to spend more than 1 week's pay for housing. That's not right.

They somehow got robbed of the freedoms I had, how did this happen?

It's definitely not right.

I never expected to get my own apartment when I graduated high school. That was 1963 and kids today just getting out of should not expect to either.

It's different than then, though. now it's 2 week's pay to pay for housing. How did that happen?

 

[Markle]

When I think about all the horror stories I've heard, yes, they should be shot.


They caused so many people so much pain. I really am blessed that it didn't affect me. It affected everybody, though. My work dried right up. Nobody hires me to do things at their house when nobody's home.

We had to take pay cuts after the crash........And I watched neighbors who had lost their jobs.....Packing up and leaving with their kids.......Good people who lost everything..................

It was sickening to watch..........Pisses me off til this day...........

Workers still haven’t recovered from that pay cut

Our pay recovered and has increased a little. But energy jobs have been booming......and were why Texas did so well after the crash.......Energy and oil is a driving factor in this country and puts a lot of money in circulation..........It still is.............

To me, pay still sucks

I remember the booming 90s under Clinton. Got pay increases of 4-6 percent a year

This economy is supposed to be the best in a generation. Workers are lucky to see a 2 percent raise

I don’t see worker salaries much higher than they were in the 90 s

inflation rates were higher during the 1990's, also.
U.S.: average annual inflation rate 1990-2017 | Statista

Trivial inflation rates.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Our pay recovered and has increased a little. But energy jobs have been booming......and were why Texas did so well after the crash.......Energy and oil is a driving factor in this country and puts a lot of money in circulation..........It still is.............

To me, pay still sucks

I remember the booming 90s under Clinton. Got pay increases of 4-6 percent a year

This economy is supposed to be the best in a generation. Workers are lucky to see a 2 percent raise

I don’t see worker salaries much higher than they were in the 90 s

Aye, I also enjoyed those years.
Trouble was though RW, it was a mirage.
Robert Rubin/Larry Summers/Alan Greenspan devised the "debt as income" economy.
Without a doubt it created a massive growth in the economy and lead to the 80's booming yuppie culture of materialism and "shopping as entertainment".
Trouble was, of course, it had to end. People were spending money they haven't made yet. Buying homes that were way out of their sane reach. It was common for folfs to be walking around with $15-$30,000 in credit card debt alone. All that buying created the "Reagan/Clinton boom". A Castle Made of Sand.
And this also created Corporatism. Which is destroying America, little by little, day by day.

All I know is, (And me and the fellers talk about this too)

When I was a young man, and just starting to make my way, the guy I was apprenticing with taught me this:

1 week's pay should pay for your housing.

The next week's pay should cover utilities and food.

Then you have 2 week's pay out of every month to save or spend, your choice.


I feel sad that it simply is not that way these days. It's still the same for me, but not for youth just getting out of high school. They have to spend more than 1 week's pay for housing. That's not right.

They somehow got robbed of the freedoms I had, how did this happen?

It's definitely not right.

I never expected to get my own apartment when I graduated high school. That was 1963 and kids today just getting out of should not expect to either.

It's different than then, though. now it's 2 week's pay to pay for housing. How did that happen?

I believe it was Roy Rogers that said "Buy land--God ain't making anymore of it."

 

[Meister]

We had to take pay cuts after the crash........And I watched neighbors who had lost their jobs.....Packing up and leaving with their kids.......Good people who lost everything..................

It was sickening to watch..........Pisses me off til this day...........

Workers still haven’t recovered from that pay cut

Our pay recovered and has increased a little. But energy jobs have been booming......and were why Texas did so well after the crash.......Energy and oil is a driving factor in this country and puts a lot of money in circulation..........It still is.............

To me, pay still sucks

I remember the booming 90s under Clinton. Got pay increases of 4-6 percent a year

This economy is supposed to be the best in a generation. Workers are lucky to see a 2 percent raise

I don’t see worker salaries much higher than they were in the 90 s

inflation rates were higher during the 1990's, also.
U.S.: average annual inflation rate 1990-2017 | Statista

Trivial inflation rates.

Perhaps, but, with the inflation at approx 3% and wages at 4-6 percent in the 90's, that's just like a 1-3 percent net wage.
Today it's 1.75-2.0 percent so the wage increase just covers or a slight edge up. Using RW's numbers. So, not big net number differential

 

[Markle]

Workers still haven’t recovered from that pay cut

Our pay recovered and has increased a little. But energy jobs have been booming......and were why Texas did so well after the crash.......Energy and oil is a driving factor in this country and puts a lot of money in circulation..........It still is.............

To me, pay still sucks

I remember the booming 90s under Clinton. Got pay increases of 4-6 percent a year

This economy is supposed to be the best in a generation. Workers are lucky to see a 2 percent raise

I don’t see worker salaries much higher than they were in the 90 s

Aye, I also enjoyed those years.
Trouble was though RW, it was a mirage.
Robert Rubin/Larry Summers/Alan Greenspan devised the "debt as income" economy.
Without a doubt it created a massive growth in the economy and lead to the 80's booming yuppie culture of materialism and "shopping as entertainment".
Trouble was, of course, it had to end. People were spending money they haven't made yet. Buying homes that were way out of their sane reach. It was common for folfs to be walking around with $15-$30,000 in credit card debt alone. All that buying created the "Reagan/Clinton boom". A Castle Made of Sand.
And this also created Corporatism. Which is destroying America, little by little, day by day.

I think today the problem is college debt for young folks. When I was a young man, few went to college. Out of a class of 40 high school students, perhaps 10 went to college and Lord knows how many graduated.

Today you are a lost soul without education, but that education will set you back ten years of repaying loans.

My nephew graduated with a Masters and has a great paying job, but paying off his debt is something he's counting on until his mid 30's or later, and that's on top of my sisters loans that she took out.

I paid for my college with tutoring and a restaurant job. Yeah, that's messed up, too.

College costs are 5x what they were.

I too paid for my own college with free room and board at home. Two years at what was then a Jr. College and two years at the University of Miami, a private college. I earned money bagging groceries, throwing stock, washing dishes in a bowling alley, a bouncer, a gopher, and diver for the Miami Seaquarium, salvage diver, and bowling.

The cost of college has increased so much because of the government grants, and with easier and easier loans to the students. The easier tuition was to obtain for either the school and or students. The more money given to the student for tuition, the more tuition the schools can charge. There is a large Progressive contingent who firmly believes that everyone should go to college or they are DOOMED!

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, I actually have arguments not just fake news and fallacy. Of course I believe my arguments; I resort to the fewest fallacy just for that reason; unlike the fake news, right wing.

Say the minimum wage today in City A is $7.50 per hour and your fantasy wish for $15.00 an hour is adopted. That's a 100% increase, right?

What happens to the worker earning $15.00 per hour after your wish is adopted? What happens then?

Historically, His pay will also increase

Which will leave the person now making $15.00 per hour after 100% raise (I've given myself that rate of a raise but no employer has ever been so generous) still at the bottom of the ladder so it still will not be enough to support a person in the manner in which they'd like to become accustomed.

The right wing like to plead so specially, in a vacuum.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, by comparison.

How is my post "in a vacuum"?

If Social Services are $14.00 per hour, something you've never supported with a reliable source and link. What would it go to if all wages increased 100%?

.walter e. williams:

1. While legislative bodies have the power to order wage increases, they have not as of yet found a way to order commensurate increases in worker productivity that make the worker’s output worth the higher wage.
2. Further, while Congress can legislate the wage at which labor transactions occur, it cannot require that the transaction actually be made, and the worker hired.