Why is it that every idiot that ever makes this statement never quantifies it? ...
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Why is it that the idiots on this thread are reading impaired? Below is the link - again, that I posted earlier on this thread.[/FONT]
Living Wage Calculator
<snip>
The living wage varies based on the cost of living and taxes where families live. Families of four (with two working adults, two children) in the North ($56,179) and West ($53,505) have higher median living wages before taxes than the South ($49,167), and Midwest ($48,496). Within region, the largest variation is between Southern states, where the living wage ranges from $45,655 in South Carolina to $69,820 in the District of Columbia.
In most metropolitan areas, where the US economy and jobs are increasingly concentrated, the living wage is higher than the national median. Consistent with overall regional variation, of the most populous 100 metropolitan areas, Honolulu ($66,554), New York ($67,323), and Washington DC ($69,709) have the highest living wages for the typical
family of four.
.
Looks like the central planning calculator you ordered from
www.socialistclown.nyet came early.....
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
According to [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Salvatore Babones[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
research, suggesting you go back a million years is ridiculous - 1968 is the gold standard for the minimum wage...[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
"...[/FONT]If our standard for minimum wages had kept pace with overall income growth in the American economy, it would now be
$21.16 per hour.
Yes, had the US income distribution and US standards of decency remained exactly what it was in 1968, the minimum wage would now be $21.16 per hour."
I grew up on the idea that America stood for progress, continual progress toward a better society. Even a $21.16 minimum wage wouldnÂ’t represent progress. It would mean socially standing still, just with better technology and higher productivity levels. Progress would mean a minimum wage in excess of $21.16 per hour."
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
And according to an article posted on the [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]truth-out.org[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
website...[/FONT]
"...Could we imagine 1960s Americans setting their minimum wage at a level below the living standards of the 1920s? The minimum wage shouldn't just be raised back to the 1968 level. It should be set at an appropriate level for 2012.
Based on consumption growth since 1968, the minimum wage today would have to be $25.05 to represent the same share of the country's total consumption. Based on national income growth, the minimum wage should be $22.08. Based on personal income growth, it should be $21.16.
No matter how you look at it, the 2012 minimum wage shouldn't be $7.25 an hour, or even $10.55 an hour. Even the most progressive demands for the minimum wage are way too low. Too many Americans are living in the past. Working Americans should be living in 2012, not 1968.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Did you miss the memo - weren't Republicans instructed by their oligarchy to think the Earth is only 6,000 years old? -pewsh!-[/FONT]
.