Min Wage versus Cost of Living 1970 to 2018

[Daryl Hunt]

Here is what Inflation looks like when the Rich takes advantage of the Averate and below income levels Cost of Living.

milk at the dairy
1970 1.32
2018 2.90
Milk has not kept up with inflation. Even before the unfair Canadian trade Practice, Protectionism, etc. and Tariffs on US Milk, there was the introduction of the Milk Alterntives made from Grains and such. Unlike other Farming, Dairy Farmers can't rotate their products. They either operate at a loss, make money or get out of business. Trump has promised that due to the Tariffs that the Dairy Farmers will receive relief but the Diary Farmers don't want it. They claim that it will mostly go to larger Corporate Dairy Farms that are already Profitable even with all the negatives because they control most of the market. The smaller Diary Farmers will only be buying time until they go out of business. What they want is an even playing field. Nothing else will keep them in business. Next year look for Diary Farm Foreclosure Auctions to happen at an alarming rate even with the relief.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loaf of Bread
1970 25 cents
2018 2.38
The US is the Worlds #1 Wheat and Grain producer in the World. We have Silos with it sitting rotting away. That's over a 952% increase in cost. Well behind the wage increase.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Wage
1970 9,400
2018 44,321
That's over a 400% increase.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per Lb of Hamburger
1970 70 cents
2018 4.68
Hamburger, like other cuts of meat, is over 660% higher today than in 1970. It has lost ground to wages. Overall, with the exception to milk, food has lost between 200 and 1000% to average wages. And that is considering Average Wage, not minimum wage. Minimum Wage is much, much worse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of a new Home
1970 23,450
2018 325,500
So you want to buy a home? Good luck on the average wage with a family of 4. You really want me to do the percent comparison on this one? There is a reason that the younger people are, for the most part, electing to rent rather than buy. For the most part, the younger people make less than the average wage and after the other costs of living, can't afford the payments, insurance and taxes on a new house or even an older house.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some People are getting bloody rich on these deals. And it's not the average or below average consumer. Certainly not the min wage or even the average wage earner.

Over half of the Uber Rich supports the increasing of the Min Wage. They give the reason that it gives the poor (min wage) more portable income. There fore more money to spend on their products and services. But that's not all. It also means that the Rich can and will raise those services and products to take away any and all the gains that min wage gave to the worker while expecing the new min wage worker to do more purchasing of their goods and products. It's a very lucrative, short termed program. But in the end, the workers all lose ground exactly as I showed above. But the Rich just got richer.

I am against Min Wage for this reason. We don't need a Min Wage. We need a Living Wage. At the same time, we need a Consumer Group that has the power to drag these unscrupulous theives into civil courts and get them fined for unfair trade practice.

I made less than that in 1970. The key is not what you make but how you spend it. Tear up your credit cards and you'll have the house and the whole loaf of bread.

You keep saying that but many don't have credit cards nor a house. And can barely afford that loaf of bread. And they have a Job.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Here is what Inflation looks like when the Rich takes advantage of the Averate and below income levels Cost of Living.

milk at the dairy
1970 1.32
2018 2.90
Milk has not kept up with inflation. Even before the unfair Canadian trade Practice, Protectionism, etc. and Tariffs on US Milk, there was the introduction of the Milk Alterntives made from Grains and such. Unlike other Farming, Dairy Farmers can't rotate their products. They either operate at a loss, make money or get out of business. Trump has promised that due to the Tariffs that the Dairy Farmers will receive relief but the Diary Farmers don't want it. They claim that it will mostly go to larger Corporate Dairy Farms that are already Profitable even with all the negatives because they control most of the market. The smaller Diary Farmers will only be buying time until they go out of business. What they want is an even playing field. Nothing else will keep them in business. Next year look for Diary Farm Foreclosure Auctions to happen at an alarming rate even with the relief.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loaf of Bread
1970 25 cents
2018 2.38
The US is the Worlds #1 Wheat and Grain producer in the World. We have Silos with it sitting rotting away. That's over a 952% increase in cost. Well behind the wage increase.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Wage
1970 9,400
2018 44,321
That's over a 400% increase.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per Lb of Hamburger
1970 70 cents
2018 4.68
Hamburger, like other cuts of meat, is over 660% higher today than in 1970. It has lost ground to wages. Overall, with the exception to milk, food has lost between 200 and 1000% to average wages. And that is considering Average Wage, not minimum wage. Minimum Wage is much, much worse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of a new Home
1970 23,450
2018 325,500
So you want to buy a home? Good luck on the average wage with a family of 4. You really want me to do the percent comparison on this one? There is a reason that the younger people are, for the most part, electing to rent rather than buy. For the most part, the younger people make less than the average wage and after the other costs of living, can't afford the payments, insurance and taxes on a new house or even an older house.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some People are getting bloody rich on these deals. And it's not the average or below average consumer. Certainly not the min wage or even the average wage earner.

Over half of the Uber Rich supports the increasing of the Min Wage. They give the reason that it gives the poor (min wage) more portable income. There fore more money to spend on their products and services. But that's not all. It also means that the Rich can and will raise those services and products to take away any and all the gains that min wage gave to the worker while expecing the new min wage worker to do more purchasing of their goods and products. It's a very lucrative, short termed program. But in the end, the workers all lose ground exactly as I showed above. But the Rich just got richer.

I am against Min Wage for this reason. We don't need a Min Wage. We need a Living Wage. At the same time, we need a Consumer Group that has the power to drag these unscrupulous theives into civil courts and get them fined for unfair trade practice.

I made less than that in 1970. The key is not what you make but how you spend it. Tear up your credit cards and you'll have the house and the whole loaf of bread.

You keep saying that but many don't have credit cards nor a house. And can barely afford that loaf of bread. And they have a Job.

My brother worked two jobs, one was at a hotdog stand and bought a 150 grand house in the late 1980s. People need the latest t.v.s , cell phones and stuff quit making excuses . Instead of drinking Bud light drink they can drink cheaper natural light.

.

 

[Silver Blooded]

Oh, I see. You're calling me a troll because I don't think the USA should be the world police. You and the OP must have supported the Korean war, and the Vietnam war, and the gulf war, and all the other wars where the USA decided to stick its dick in the middle of other country's conflicts.

We were talking about Japan and nothing about us being the world police, at that time.

Since you do not believe it should be the job of the United States to be the "world police". Specifically, who do you want to fill the vacuum? When failed former President Barack Hussein Obama, against the advice of his generals, pulled all our troops out of Iraq, who filled the void and how did that work out?

Dude, you're calling me a troll for saying we should have left Japan alone. You're implying that the USA had an obligation to stick its neck out for other countries because the Japanese were being vile to them. In my eyes, that's being "world police." We're sticking our necks out for other countries because of "ethics."

There SHOULDN'T be a world police. Period. Countries either fend for themselves or they fall. That was the case for millennia, and that's how it should stay. When the UN gets troops involved it's always 90% USA troops, so fuck it. If no one else is pulling their weight, why should we pull the weight of everyone else? We should care for OUR citizens and other countries resolve their crisis on their own. We have mountains of homeless and jobless people in our own country. Let's tend to them first before we start fucking with other people. Why do people think the USA is an indestructible titan that can fix the world? I'm sure the Romans thought they were indestructible too...


ISIS formed BECAUSE we got involved in that region. Either GW lied, or was lied to, about WMDs and Hussein didn't bother correcting the record so the Iraq War started. When they had Saddam Hussein on the ropes, GW got the idea in his head that he could set up a friendly state in the middle east for easier supply for oil. So he hanged Hussein and tried to set up a new government. COMPLETELY destabilizing the region. Before his plan could be realized (if it was even possible) Obama took over and pulled the plug to fulfill his campaign promise, and ISIS took form. If we had stayed out of there, nothing would have happened. But since we DID get involved, it was all in or bust, and Obama busted. Trump and Putin fixed his fucking mess. If we had just left Iraq alone, the region would have still oppressed by Hussein, but at least stable. Instead ISIS formed turned Iraq and Syria into a fucking warzone.

 

[Markle]

You keep saying that but many don't have credit cards nor a house. And can barely afford that loaf of bread. And they have a Job.

What is the average income of a household where one worker earns the minimum wage?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Obviously you can't find any of the ten or eleven depredations of Roosevelt listed......he was a terrible President for America.....

And this:

Here is an interesting visual: imagine a triple line of the unemployed, three across, consisting of those unemployed under Hoover, in 1931. The line would have gone from Los Angeles, across the country, to the border of Maine.

What effect did Roosevelt have on the line?

Well, eight years later, in 1939, the length of the line would have gone further, from the Maine border, south to Boston, then on to New York City, then to Philadelphia, on to Washington, D.C.- and finally, into Virginia.
Folsom, "New Deal or Raw Deal"

Think Folsom was wrong?

Check it out at the US Bureau of the Census, 'Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970, I-126 and Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression

....so what is your point?????

In my opinion, FDR was a great war president and a terrible domestic/economic president. At the time, I believe being a great war president was far more important.

Actually, M, in another thread, and with more time, I believe I can convince you otherwise.

Go for it PoliticalChic. Keep in mind, I deal only in facts, not feelings. So...HIT ME WITH YOUR BEST SHOT!

I could construct a multi-post, multi-faceted thread on this one topic alone....I have before.....but just a tiny taste today:

Roosevelt turned over the running of the war, and the use of our forces to his BFF, Joseph Stalin.

This can be clearly seen in many ways....but I'll give you just two today

1. Even thought we had conquered Italy, and even Eisenhower said it would be best to head north to Germany, FDR bowed to Stalin's wishes that Eastern Europe be left to his tender mercies and the Red Army, he did what Stalin wanted and made western Europe....Normandy.....the Allied attack point.
Franklin Roosevelt was in thrall of the far more brilliant, Joseph Stalin. The aims of the Roosevelt administration included turning over at least half of the continent of Europe to Stalin's tender mercies at the war's end.

Pivotal to this endeavor was the insistence that the Allied attack on Fortress Europa be via Normandy, the northwestern edge of the continent, and not the more logical southern vantage, Italy.

a. In Kerry-like terms, General Eisenhower 'was for the Italy invasion before he voted against it.' Of course, the received an extra star for changing his view.

And...

2. Rather than accept the attempted contacts of Abwehr Admiral Canaris and others, to overthrow Hitler and gain a surrender, FDR acceded to Stalin's demands for nothing less than unconditional surrender, and the destruction of Germany's ability to stand in Stalin's way after the war.
To get an idea of the cost of the extended war...."....over one hundred thirty-five thousand American GIs died – a startling figure today – between D day[june 6, 1944] and V-E day,[May 8, 1945]...."
So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich Stuff I Done Wrote - The Michael A. Charles Online Presence

Get that?

135,000 brave American boys whose lives were offered up as a gift to Stalin....to make certain that communism survived.

Based on the ratio of deaths to wounded, that would suggest almost an additional 200,000 wounded, just between Normandy and Germany's surrender.

Totally attributed to 'unconditional surrender.'

BTW.....the same view comes from the German side. "All to whom I talked dwelt onthe effect of 'unconditional surrender' policy on the prolonging of the war. They told me that, but for this- and their troops, the factor that was more important- would have been to surrender sooner, separately or collectively."
"The German Generals Talk," byBasil H. Liddell Hart, p. 292-293

"....to surrender sooner, separately or collectively."

a. The disastrous consequences of the unconditional surrender policy soon became evident. Captain Harry Butcher, Eisenhower's naval aide, noted in his diary on April 14, 1944: "Any military person knows that there are conditions to every surrender. . . . Goebbels has made great capital with it to strengthen the morale of the German army and people. Our psychological experts believe we would be wiser if we created a mood of acceptance of surrender in the German army which would make possible a collapse of resistance. . . ."
"My Three Years With Eisenhower: The Personal Diary of Captain Harry C. Butcher, USNR, Naval Aide to General Eisenhower...," byHarry C. Butcher

FDR did for the war what he did for the Depression......made it years longer than it could have been.

I must have missed the reliable source and link. My bad. would you post it again?

Who knew PM Winston Churchill and General Eisenhower were getting their orders from Joseph Stalin. Who knew?

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't Joseph Stalin more involved with the Eastern Front?

As you know, Joseph Stalin, (who you claim was running the war for FDR, forget Winston Churchill) was demanding that the US, and the allies, open up a second front in Europe in August of 1942. When did the US enter the war in Europe?

You're embarrassing yourself. You left out the fifty years where FDR was giving away Europe. Where are your reliable sources and working link supporting your allegation?

There's none so blind as he who will not see.



You're certainly free to ignore the facts and education provided.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A great war president? LMFAO he gave away half of Europe for almost 50 years.

FDR gave away half of Europe for almost 50 years? How did that work and when did he do it?

He did exactly that.

Evidence that the Roosevelt administration had every intention of handing over Europe to Stalin can be seen in a document which Hopkins took with him to the Quebec conference in August, 1943, entitled "Russia's Position," quoted as follows in Robert Sherwood's book, "Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History,":
"Russia's post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one. With Germany crushed, there is no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."

BTW....that is the reason that Stalin/Harry Hopkins had no intention of allowing Germany to surrender while they still had industrial/military capacity.

You do know that Harry Hopkins was Stalin's spy living in Roosevelt's White House, don't you?

And you have such fine reliable sources and links. You're fun.

Fun with what, common knowledge?

.

Wow, since it is common knowledge, you must have reliable sources and working links proving your point by the hundreds. And yet...you have nothing.

Two excellent books that might cure your blindness.......or not.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Obviously you can't find any of the ten or eleven depredations of Roosevelt listed......he was a terrible President for America.....

And this:

Here is an interesting visual: imagine a triple line of the unemployed, three across, consisting of those unemployed under Hoover, in 1931. The line would have gone from Los Angeles, across the country, to the border of Maine.

What effect did Roosevelt have on the line?

Well, eight years later, in 1939, the length of the line would have gone further, from the Maine border, south to Boston, then on to New York City, then to Philadelphia, on to Washington, D.C.- and finally, into Virginia.
Folsom, "New Deal or Raw Deal"

Think Folsom was wrong?

Check it out at the US Bureau of the Census, 'Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970, I-126 and Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression

....so what is your point?????

In my opinion, FDR was a great war president and a terrible domestic/economic president. At the time, I believe being a great war president was far more important.

Have you ever read a book?

You know what a book is, don't you?


I'm gonna go with Eisenhower's view rather than your indoctrination. He knew Italy was the right choice, not France....but he was, by definition, a good soldier.
So, when his boss told him what Stalin had ordered......he too a star and acquiesced.


1. As to the question of Eisenhower's preference in attacking Fortress Europa, he stated in 1948: "My own recommendation, then as always, was that no operation should be taken in the Mediterranean except as a directly supporting move for the Channel attack and our planned deployment [of troops out of Italy] should proceed with all possible speed."
Eisenhower, "Crusade in Europe," p.198-200


a. But, in 1943, before he was offered another star:
"Italy was the correct place in which to deploy our main forces and the objective should be the Valle of the PO. In no other area could we so well threaten the whole German structure including France, the Balkans and the Reich itself. Here also our air would be closer to vital objectives in Germany."
FRUS: The conferences at Cairo and Tehran, 1943, p.359-361
That report was published in "Foreign Relations of the United States" in 1961

Eisenhower's statement was to an audience in November 26, 1943....

" In December 1943, it was announced that Eisenhower would be Supreme Allied Commander in Europe." Military career of Dwight D. Eisenhower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He received his fifth star December 20, 1944....four days after Marshall received his.



Actually in another thread, and with more time, I believe I can convince you otherwise.

Go for it PoliticalChic. Keep in mind, I deal only in facts, not feelings. So...HIT ME WITH YOUR BEST SHOT!

I could construct a multi-post, multi-faceted thread on this one topic alone....I have before.....but just a tiny taste today:

Roosevelt turned over the running of the war, and the use of our forces to his BFF, Joseph Stalin.

This can be clearly seen in many ways....but I'll give you just two today

1. Even thought we had conquered Italy, and even Eisenhower said it would be best to head north to Germany, FDR bowed to Stalin's wishes that Eastern Europe be left to his tender mercies and the Red Army, he did what Stalin wanted and made western Europe....Normandy.....the Allied attack point.
Franklin Roosevelt was in thrall of the far more brilliant, Joseph Stalin. The aims of the Roosevelt administration included turning over at least half of the continent of Europe to Stalin's tender mercies at the war's end.

Pivotal to this endeavor was the insistence that the Allied attack on Fortress Europa be via Normandy, the northwestern edge of the continent, and not the more logical southern vantage, Italy.

a. In Kerry-like terms, General Eisenhower 'was for the Italy invasion before he voted against it.' Of course, the received an extra star for changing his view.


And...



2. Rather than accept the attempted contacts of Abwehr Admiral Canaris and others, to overthrow Hitler and gain a surrender, FDR acceded to Stalin's demands for nothing less than unconditional surrender, and the destruction of Germany's ability to stand in Stalin's way after the war.
To get an idea of the cost of the extended war...."....over one hundred thirty-five thousand American GIs died – a startling figure today – between D day[june 6, 1944] and V-E day,[May 8, 1945]...."
So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich Stuff I Done Wrote - The Michael A. Charles Online Presence

Get that?

135,000 brave American boys whose lives were offered up as a gift to Stalin....to make certain that communism survived.


Based on the ratio of deaths to wounded, that would suggest almost an additional 200,000 wounded, just between Normandy and Germany's surrender.

Totally attributed to 'unconditional surrender.'



BTW.....the same view comes from the German side. "All to whom I talked dwelt onthe effect of 'unconditional surrender' policy on the prolonging of the war. They told me that, but for this- and their troops, the factor that was more important- would have been to surrender sooner, separately or collectively."
"The German Generals Talk," byBasil H. Liddell Hart, p. 292-293

"....to surrender sooner, separately or collectively."


a. The disastrous consequences of the unconditional surrender policy soon became evident. Captain Harry Butcher, Eisenhower's naval aide, noted in his diary on April 14, 1944: "Any military person knows that there are conditions to every surrender. . . . Goebbels has made great capital with it to strengthen the morale of the German army and people. Our psychological experts believe we would be wiser if we created a mood of acceptance of surrender in the German army which would make possible a collapse of resistance. . . ."
"My Three Years With Eisenhower: The Personal Diary of Captain Harry C. Butcher, USNR, Naval Aide to General Eisenhower...," byHarry C. Butcher




FDR did for the war what he did for the Depression......made it years longer than it could have been.

Have you ever been to the Mountains in between France and Italy? BTW, it was AFTER D-Day that that section of Italy was finally taken. Hannibal did it but at a huge cost to man and beast. My Father was in on the southern France invasion. They used much of the Italian Invasion Forces. The problem was, it had to be delayed. There were only so many Higgins Boats to be had and almost all of them went to Normandy. Even with D-Day being successful, the Southern invasion was no cakewalk. I can't imagine, without D-Day, the southern invasion being successful. But the threat of Callay and the Southern Invasion did draw off German Military Power from the Normandy Coastal defense. But Omaha Beach and one or two others were defended but it was the terrain that worked to the Germans advantage. But to not attack there would have given the Germans the chance to send all their forces to the easier landing spots. All that was taken into consideration by people a damned sight smarter than you are.

You want to rewrite history? Write a book. But start it with "Once Up a Time".

Have you ever read a book?

You know what a book is, don't you?


I'm gonna go with Eisenhower's view rather than your indoctrination. He knew Italy was the right choice, not France....but he was, by definition, a good soldier.
So, when his boss told him what Stalin had ordered......he took a star and acquiesced.


1. As to the question of Eisenhower's preference in attacking Fortress Europa, he stated in 1948: "My own recommendation, then as always, was that no operation should be taken in the Mediterranean except as a directly supporting move for the Channel attack and our planned deployment [of troops out of Italy] should proceed with all possible speed."
Eisenhower, "Crusade in Europe," p.198-200


a. But, in 1943, before he was offered another star:
"Italy was the correct place in which to deploy our main forces and the objective should be the Valle of the PO. In no other area could we so well threaten the whole German structure including France, the Balkans and the Reich itself. Here also our air would be closer to vital objectives in Germany."
FRUS: The conferences at Cairo and Tehran, 1943, p.359-361
That report was published in "Foreign Relations of the United States" in 1961

Eisenhower's statement was to an audience in November 26, 1943....

" In December 1943, it was announced that Eisenhower would be Supreme Allied Commander in Europe." Military career of Dwight D. Eisenhower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He received his fifth star December 20, 1944....four days after Marshall received his.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Don't tell us you're only 30 something and ignorant with history and didn't live through the 1970s and 1980s

I was in Vietnam.

After not hearing from my Ol' Man for three months, and having all her letters returned as undeliverable my Mom received the postcard below.

One of many returned.

God Bless the men of that generation.



Sadly, FDR didn't care about them, and his malfeasance cost over 100 thousand of them their lives because he pursued the war for Stalin and not for them.


Rather than confront Stalin, the Roosevelt administration allowed the Soviets to keep thousands of American soldiers as prisoners.

On March 26, 1945, Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall issued the following order: "Censor all stories, delete criticism Russian treatment." This was aimed at those Americans who had been POWs of the Red Army. Note that some 20,000 US soldiers were never returned.

a. FDR died April 12th..but, based on Marshall's order, the White House clearly knew of the following prior to that:

" By May 15, 1945, the Pentagon believed 25,000 American POWs "liberated" by the Red Army were still being held hostage to Soviet demands that all "Soviet citizens" be returned to Soviet control, "without exception" and by force if necessary, as agreed to at the Yalta Conference in February 1945. When the U.S. refused to return some military formations composed of Soviet citizens, such as the First Ukrainian SS Division, Stalin retaliated by returning only 4,116 of the hostage American POWs. On June 1, 1945, the United States Government issued documents, signed by General Dwight D. Eisenhower, explaining away the loss of approximately 20,000 POWs remaining under Stalin's control." http://www.nationalalliance.org/wwii/wwii.html


Did you notice that I document everything I post?

 

[Jitss617]

Here is what Inflation looks like when the Rich takes advantage of the Averate and below income levels Cost of Living.

milk at the dairy
1970 1.32
2018 2.90
Milk has not kept up with inflation. Even before the unfair Canadian trade Practice, Protectionism, etc. and Tariffs on US Milk, there was the introduction of the Milk Alterntives made from Grains and such. Unlike other Farming, Dairy Farmers can't rotate their products. They either operate at a loss, make money or get out of business. Trump has promised that due to the Tariffs that the Dairy Farmers will receive relief but the Diary Farmers don't want it. They claim that it will mostly go to larger Corporate Dairy Farms that are already Profitable even with all the negatives because they control most of the market. The smaller Diary Farmers will only be buying time until they go out of business. What they want is an even playing field. Nothing else will keep them in business. Next year look for Diary Farm Foreclosure Auctions to happen at an alarming rate even with the relief.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loaf of Bread
1970 25 cents
2018 2.38
The US is the Worlds #1 Wheat and Grain producer in the World. We have Silos with it sitting rotting away. That's over a 952% increase in cost. Well behind the wage increase.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Wage
1970 9,400
2018 44,321
That's over a 400% increase.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per Lb of Hamburger
1970 70 cents
2018 4.68
Hamburger, like other cuts of meat, is over 660% higher today than in 1970. It has lost ground to wages. Overall, with the exception to milk, food has lost between 200 and 1000% to average wages. And that is considering Average Wage, not minimum wage. Minimum Wage is much, much worse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of a new Home
1970 23,450
2018 325,500
So you want to buy a home? Good luck on the average wage with a family of 4. You really want me to do the percent comparison on this one? There is a reason that the younger people are, for the most part, electing to rent rather than buy. For the most part, the younger people make less than the average wage and after the other costs of living, can't afford the payments, insurance and taxes on a new house or even an older house.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some People are getting bloody rich on these deals. And it's not the average or below average consumer. Certainly not the min wage or even the average wage earner.

Over half of the Uber Rich supports the increasing of the Min Wage. They give the reason that it gives the poor (min wage) more portable income. There fore more money to spend on their products and services. But that's not all. It also means that the Rich can and will raise those services and products to take away any and all the gains that min wage gave to the worker while expecing the new min wage worker to do more purchasing of their goods and products. It's a very lucrative, short termed program. But in the end, the workers all lose ground exactly as I showed above. But the Rich just got richer.

I am against Min Wage for this reason. We don't need a Min Wage. We need a Living Wage. At the same time, we need a Consumer Group that has the power to drag these unscrupulous theives into civil courts and get them fined for unfair trade practice.

You should stop flooding American towns with low wage foreigners

 

[Markle]

FDR gave away half of Europe for almost 50 years? How did that work and when did he do it?

He did exactly that.

Evidence that the Roosevelt administration had every intention of handing over Europe to Stalin can be seen in a document which Hopkins took with him to the Quebec conference in August, 1943, entitled "Russia's Position," quoted as follows in Robert Sherwood's book, "Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History,":
"Russia's post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one. With Germany crushed, there is no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."

BTW....that is the reason that Stalin/Harry Hopkins had no intention of allowing Germany to surrender while they still had industrial/military capacity.

You do know that Harry Hopkins was Stalin's spy living in Roosevelt's White House, don't you?

And you have such fine reliable sources and links. You're fun.

Fun with what, common knowledge?

.

Wow, since it is common knowledge, you must have reliable sources and working links proving your point by the hundreds. And yet...you have nothing.

Two excellent books that might cure your blindness.......or not.

Other than you, who conveniently dodge the issue, no one was talking about post-Soviet Union.

 

[Wyatt earp]

He did exactly that.

Evidence that the Roosevelt administration had every intention of handing over Europe to Stalin can be seen in a document which Hopkins took with him to the Quebec conference in August, 1943, entitled "Russia's Position," quoted as follows in Robert Sherwood's book, "Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History,":
"Russia's post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one. With Germany crushed, there is no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."

BTW....that is the reason that Stalin/Harry Hopkins had no intention of allowing Germany to surrender while they still had industrial/military capacity.

You do know that Harry Hopkins was Stalin's spy living in Roosevelt's White House, don't you?

And you have such fine reliable sources and links. You're fun.

Fun with what, common knowledge?

.

Wow, since it is common knowledge, you must have reliable sources and working links proving your point by the hundreds. And yet...you have nothing.

Two excellent books that might cure your blindness.......or not.

Other than you, who conveniently dodge the issue, no one was talking about post-Soviet Union.

You still denying half of Europe was under the Iron curtain for almost 50 years after FDR gave it away to Stalin?


God give it a rest and quit trying to dishonor people like Lech Welsa


.

 

[Supposn]

Daryl Hunt, I’m a proponent of the federal minimum wage being increased at a rate of 12.5% Per year, until it achieves 125% of its purchasing power, and there after it should be monitored and annually adjusted as not to be reduced beyond that targeted purchasing power.

… I am against Min Wage for this reason. We don't need a Min Wage. We need a Living Wage. …

Prior to the federal minimum wage rate substantially exceeding its historic February-1968 peak value, I doubt if a guaranteed-living-wage could reach the floors of the U.S. House and Senate chambers and voted upon by their entire memberships.

(The federal minimum rate of February-1968 was $1.60/hour). Respectfully, Supposn

 

[sparky]

I doubt if a guaranteed-living-wage could reach the floors of the U.S. House and Senate chambers

i wouldn't bet the farm on it Supposn.....

~S~

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Daryl Hunt, I’m a proponent of the federal minimum wage being increased at a rate of 12.5% Per year, until it achieves 125% of its purchasing power, and there after it should be monitored and annually adjusted as not to be reduced beyond that targeted purchasing power.

… I am against Min Wage for this reason. We don't need a Min Wage. We need a Living Wage. …

Prior to the federal minimum wage rate substantially exceeding its historic February-1968 peak value, I doubt if a guaranteed-living-wage could reach the floors of the U.S. House and Senate chambers and voted upon by their entire memberships.

(The federal minimum rate of February-1968 was $1.60/hour). Respectfully, Supposn

Nah.

Boot 20 million illegals, the bottom wage for low skilled Americans would rise naturally.

 

[sparky]

~S~

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Daryl Hunt, I’m a proponent of the federal minimum wage being increased at a rate of 12.5% Per year, until it achieves 125% of its purchasing power, and there after it should be monitored and annually adjusted as not to be reduced beyond that targeted purchasing power.

… I am against Min Wage for this reason. We don't need a Min Wage. We need a Living Wage. …

Prior to the federal minimum wage rate substantially exceeding its historic February-1968 peak value, I doubt if a guaranteed-living-wage could reach the floors of the U.S. House and Senate chambers and voted upon by their entire memberships.

(The federal minimum rate of February-1968 was $1.60/hour). Respectfully, Supposn

In about 1984, we got a 12% raise for the Military since we had our wages froze for a number of years to try and make it up to us. I was in Rapid City at the time. The largest employer then there was the Military and it still is. What happened was the cost of living remarkably went up 12 to 13 percent right after that. This included gas, heating, food, etc.. And I went up two tax brackets. I joked that they could keep their damned raises if that is the case. I actually lost real money with that raise. The Civilians didn't get a 12% raise but they got their cost of living raised that 12 to 13% anyway. Unless we control the Greed Factor, it does absolutely no good to have cost of living wage increases. In fact, we lose because the cost of living almost always exceeds the cost of living wage increase. This is why our dollar buys less today than it did in 1968. Got any suggestions on how to curb that?

I misquoted the 1968 min wage. It's been a long time and I didn't just look it up like you did. Someone needed to, just suposn.

 

[Markle]

I'll ask the Progressives here the same question I ask other...misinformed Progressives.

What is the average household income where one worker earns the minimum wage?

Why do we have a Federal minimum wage? How is that supposed to work? Is the cost of living in Lake City, Florida the same as in the city of New York or San Francisco? Just curious.

 

[Markle]

And you have such fine reliable sources and links. You're fun.

Fun with what, common knowledge?

.

Wow, since it is common knowledge, you must have reliable sources and working links proving your point by the hundreds. And yet...you have nothing.

Two excellent books that might cure your blindness.......or not.

Other than you, who conveniently dodge the issue, no one was talking about post-Soviet Union.

You still denying half of Europe was under the Iron curtain for almost 50 years after FDR gave it away to Stalin?

God give it a rest and quit trying to dishonor people like Lech Welsa

.

How did FDR give anything away post-WW-II? He was DEAD.

 

[007]

~S~

Actually, no, that's not even CLOSE to what Thanksgiving is about at all...

 

[Supposn]

Daryl Hunt, I’m a proponent of the federal minimum wage being increased at a rate of 12.5% Per year, until it achieves 125% of its purchasing power, and there after it should be monitored and annually adjusted as not to be reduced beyond that targeted purchasing power.

… I am against Min Wage for this reason. We don't need a Min Wage. We need a Living Wage. …

Prior to the federal minimum wage rate substantially exceeding its historic February-1968 peak value, I doubt if a guaranteed-living-wage could reach the floors of the U.S. House and Senate chambers and voted upon by their entire memberships.

(The federal minimum rate of February-1968 was $1.60/hour). Respectfully, Supposn

In about 1984, we got a 12% raise for the Military since we had our wages froze for a number of years to try and make it up to us. I was in Rapid City at the time. The largest employer then there was the Military and it still is. What happened was the cost of living remarkably went up 12 to 13 percent right after that. This included gas, heating, food, etc.. And I went up two tax brackets. I joked that they could keep their damned raises if that is the case. I actually lost real money with that raise. The Civilians didn't get a 12% raise but they got their cost of living raised that 12 to 13% anyway. Unless we control the Greed Factor, it does absolutely no good to have cost of living wage increases. In fact, we lose because the cost of living almost always exceeds the cost of living wage increase. This is why our dollar buys less today than it did in 1968. Got any suggestions on how to curb that?

I misquoted the 1968 min wage. It's been a long time and I didn't just look it up like you did. Someone needed to, just suposn.

Daryl Hunt, yes, I understand. I too was an underpaid enlisted man. It was your misfortune to be a U.S. military serviceman when much higher wage increases were being paid to civilians.
Respectfully, Supposn

Refer to
History of Federal Minimum Wage Rates Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 1938 - 2009 | U.S. Department of Labor
and
CPI Inflation Calculator

From February-1968 to October-2019,, the federal minimum wage rate has increased from $1.60 per hour to its current $7.25 per hour.
(7.25 – 1.60)/1.60 = 5.65/1.60 > 353% increase.

The purchasing power of current $7.25 dollars = 96 cents in February-1968 dollars.
(0.96 - 1.60)/1.60 = – 0.64/1.60 = 40% loss of minimum wage rate’s value since February-1968.

February-1968’s $1.60 = October- 2019’s $12.04 . That’s what it would require just to recover what we lost.