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

[Jackinthebox]

A novelty fireplace in today's McMansions are hardly the same thing as the fireplaces of yesteryear which heated homes and were used for cooking as well.

Oh bullshit you said they didn't come with them and implied people would freeze without them. A fireplace today, with a chimney can heat and prevent people from freezing.

Aside from the simple fact that there are simply many more people today

Hah what? It was fireplaces per home. You made a statement that implied homes don't have them anymore, and now you appear to be spinning like a top to make up more shit to cover it.

You show me where more people today, per capita, enjoy a hearth which can be fed with locally gathered resources. A propane fireplace in your McMansion is not a valid comparison to the original point made.

 

[Jackinthebox]

And none of that is based on vehicle technology. Again, people used to save a lot of money doing their own car repairs. Today, that is nearly impossible for anyone who is not a highly skilled and constantly training technician. I know mechanics who have made a career out of car repair who can't keep up with all the tech anymore.

Sure it is, whether you want to admit it or not newer technology has made cars safer, more efficient, and more reliable than ever. You seem to "know" a lot of people or uncles or whatever that give you anecdotal impressions that don't bear out by any better reference than your fond memories.

You said it costs more to maintain a car today, but bottom line the only source I found it was clear it wasn't even close over twice as much to drive a car back in the day.

I also see that there must be some critical flaw in the methodology of your source, considering that they also include things like the cost of insurance and gasoline. Insurance wasn't even required in 1950, for example.

That would probably favor the 1950s car if their calculations at the time didn't include paying for insurance, but I'm sure you have another source right? Something better than AAA like maybe your giddy memories of your cousins driving cars that never needed repair and shot fairy dust out of the tail pipes?

All if this is irrelevant anyway, a red herring, to distract from the point that a typical car today still costs twice as much to buy, for whatever reason, making basic individual transportation impossible for a larger section of the working class, or otherwise costing them in other sectors of self-support which they must shortchange to fill the need.

Actually it seems most of your post is a red herring to distract from almost everything you claim isn't born out by data and is never backed up by any reference other than you. Per capita far more people own cars today than ever before, and far more people own homes, and fireplaes in those homes, and they spend money owning their cars every year, and they get far more house and car when they do buy them.

Go find a graph showing what percentage of income people spent on the essentials of food, clothing, housing, and healthcare 1950 versus today. The only one higher today is healthcare and combined they make up a much smaller percentage because now we spend more money on bullshit like the internet and computer you are using to wax nostalgic about the 1950 when every sat on gold thrones and smiled.

I enjoy modern conveniences like the internet and so forth. But none of what you are telling me changes the fact that 90% of workers today earn less than the min wage standard of 1950. If you actually think we are really better off, you are seriously deluded by the boiled frog syndrome.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Oh to be back in the good ole days of the 1950s when shit was easy and my uncles each had 17 cars...

from BLS:

That's not even a real chart, it's a projection.

But then again, what are necessities anyway. One might argue that the internet is not a necessity, but you would have a hell of a time getting by in modern society without it. You can't even apply for a job anymore without internet access.

 

[SteadyMercury]

You show me where more people today, per capita, enjoy a hearth which can be fed with locally gathered resources. A propane fireplace in your McMansion is not a valid comparison to the original point made.

Sure it is, you just like saying it isn't because not only were you caught bullshitting, it has forced to focus in like a laser over something as silly as feeding with gathered resources over a hearth. You're going farther and farther off the rails trying to maintain this "glory years of yesterday" fantasy, even if it doesn't match with reality.

 

[percysunshine]

.

If there is a minimum wage, it only seems fair that there should be a maximum wage. If only for reasons of symmetry.

I propose Congress should get about $3/hr. The Executive branch should get a bit more ... $3.25/hr....

.

 

[initforme]

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

Dear you really don't co0nsider $10 an hour a "job" do you? Minimum wage makes you rich..... thanks for the incredible laugh... that is truly funny.... and absurd. You pay me $10 an hour, I show up... anything more you will have to pay me more.

 

[SteadyMercury]

But none of what you are telling me changes the fact that 90% of workers today earn less than the min wage standard of 1950.

This is bullshit, your article is using a multiplier of productivity to arrive at an eye-catching figure, which makes absolutely no sense you are either working and earning a wage or you aren't. One doesn't magically take home less money with the same paycheck and hours just because they were handed a calculator instead of a slide rule to accomplish more during their work day.

According to the inflation calculator here: The Inflation Calculator the $1,560 annual wage from 1950 is equal to $14,900 today. The $0.75/hour is worth $7.16 today, slightly less than the 2009 federal minimum wage of $7.25. So no, they weren't earning any more in 1950, and in fact most people made far less money in 1950.

Household income by quintiles here: chrome-extension://bpmcpldpdmajfigpchkicefoigmkfalc/views/app.html

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 is here: Personal income in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In 2004 dollars:

1950 Male = 17k
1950 Female = 6k

2004 Male = 31k
2004 Female = 18k

If you actually think we are really better off, you are seriously deluded by the boiled frog syndrome.

I'd counter that if you actually think you are worse off it proves you put to much in fond memories of your uncles gathered around the hearth talking about their many cars.

 

[SteadyMercury]

That's not even a real chart, it's a projection.

Hah hah you are the master of the art of self-denial. There are tons of resources on this all saying the same thing, people spent more on food+clothes+transportation+healthcare in 1950 than they do today.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

Dear you really don't co0nsider $10 an hour a "job" do you? Minimum wage makes you rich..... thanks for the incredible laugh... that is truly funny.... and absurd. You pay me $10 an hour, I show up... anything more you will have to pay me more.

dear, much of the world would love to be rich in America on $10/hr plus free education, health care and tax credits and all for having no skills whatsoever.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

making basic individual transportation impossible for a larger section of the working class,.

[/QUOTE]

silly liberal lie given that there are more cars per capita today than in 1950. Also, the concept is stupid given that standards of living go way up with the huge technological progress. THe only thing that can prevent living standards from going up with new inventions is liberal soviet interference.

This is Econ 101, class one day one.

 

[Jackinthebox]

That's not even a real chart, it's a projection.

Hah hah you are the master of the art of self-denial. There are tons of resources on this all saying the same thing, people spent more on food+clothes+transportation+healthcare in 1950 than they do today.

Of course they are spending more, because purchasing power has declined drastically.

 

[Jackinthebox]

dear, much of the world would love to be rich in America on $10/hr plus free education, health care and tax credits and all for having no skills whatsoever.

So you support socialism instead of paying your own way with an honest wage? I don't agree with it, but if you are a socialist, that's your own prerogative.

 

[Jackinthebox]

silly liberal lie given that there are more cars per capita today than in 1950. Also, the concept is stupid given that standards of living go way up with the huge technological progress. THe only thing that can prevent living standards from going up with new inventions is liberal soviet interference.

This is Econ 101, class one day one.

There are more cars per capita today out of necessity, not affordability. Back in 1950, most homes only had one car because the mother was a homemaker. Today, everyone in the household has to work, and needs a car to get to and from the jobs.

 

[Spare_change]

silly liberal lie given that there are more cars per capita today than in 1950. Also, the concept is stupid given that standards of living go way up with the huge technological progress. THe only thing that can prevent living standards from going up with new inventions is liberal soviet interference.

This is Econ 101, class one day one.

There are more cars per capita today out of necessity, not affordability. Back in 1950, most homes only had one car because the mother was a homemaker. Today, everyone in the household has to work, and needs a car to get to and from the jobs.

I'm not sure I totally agree with that ....

"Everyone in the household has to work .." is, simply, not true. Everyone works to have a higher standard of living - a new car, a bigger tv, a bigger house, etc., etc., etc. But, the question is ... could they survive at the same quality of life as the 1950 couple on one income?

I grew up in that 1950 - 60's house you talk about ... everybody had to work .. to survive. We didn't have the proverbial window or anything to throw out it ... I guarantee people on welfare today live significantly better than we did.

 

[Jackinthebox]

I'm not sure I totally agree with that ....

"Everyone in the household has to work .." is, simply, not true. Everyone works to have a higher standard of living - a new car, a bigger tv, a bigger house, etc., etc., etc. But, the question is ... could they survive at the same quality of life as the 1950 couple on one income?

I grew up in that 1950 - 60's house you talk about ... everybody had to work .. to survive. We didn't have the proverbial window or anything to throw out it ... I guarantee people on welfare today live significantly better than we did.

I have seen the shift just in my own lifetime, and I didn't grow up in the 50s. The cost of living has far outpaced earnings for blue collar workers.

My first job, I could afford more than 4 gallons of gas to get to and from work. Today, that same job will only get you about 2 gallons of gas.

I have also seen many households go from single income, to both parents being forced to work, simply to maintain their middle class standard of living. I also see the teens now too, being forced to contribute to household bills, rather than save for their future. That would have been unheard of in the 50s.

Now granted, I am not saying that there were no poor people in the 50's. But things are a lot worse today. Just looking at the number of people getting government assistance shows that much. And you can't say it's because people on welfare are just lazy, when HALF of all of them actually have jobs. That is absurd, to be working for a job that pays so little, you still need welfare to get by.

 

[Jackinthebox]

 

[Spare_change]

I'm not sure I totally agree with that ....

"Everyone in the household has to work .." is, simply, not true. Everyone works to have a higher standard of living - a new car, a bigger tv, a bigger house, etc., etc., etc. But, the question is ... could they survive at the same quality of life as the 1950 couple on one income?

I grew up in that 1950 - 60's house you talk about ... everybody had to work .. to survive. We didn't have the proverbial window or anything to throw out it ... I guarantee people on welfare today live significantly better than we did.

I have seen the shift just in my own lifetime, and I didn't grow up in the 50s. The cost of living has far outpaced earnings for blue collar workers.

My first job, I could afford more than 4 gallons of gas to get to and from work. Today, that same job will only get you about 2 gallons of gas.

I have also seen many households go from single income, to both parents being forced to work, simply to maintain their middle class standard of living. I also see the teens now too, being forced to contribute to household bills, rather than save for their future. That would have been unheard of in the 50s.

Now granted, I am not saying that there were no poor people in the 50's. But things are a lot worse today. Just looking at the number of people getting government assistance shows that much. And you can't say it's because people on welfare are just lazy, when HALF of all of them actually have jobs. That is absurd, to be working for a job that pays so little, you still need welfare to get by.

Has the cost of living really outstripped the increase in earnings? Or, as the change in lifestyle for blue collar workers outstripped the increase? In other words, is it because their money buys less, or is it that they think they need to have more in order to be considered middle class?

i think we can both agree that, in most cases, the decision for both adults in a home to work is driven by a desire to increase their lifestyle (or personal fulfillment), rather than an attempt to maintain their current lifestyle. I think that's what we both said ...

 

[Jackinthebox]

Has the cost of living really outstripped the increase in earnings? Or, as the change in lifestyle for blue collar workers outstripped the increase? In other words, is it because their money buys less, or is it that they think they need to have more in order to be considered middle class?

i think we can both agree that, in most cases, the decision for both adults in a home to work is driven by a desire to increase their lifestyle (or personal fulfillment), rather than an attempt to maintain their current lifestyle. I think that's what we both said ...

We are working harder and longer for less.

Sure, we now expect to have a flat screen and a cellphone, but that is not different than in 1950 having "new" inventions like a television tube set and a landline telephone. So really, there isn't a better lifestyle today for blue collar workers. Technology changes, sure, but we are working longer and harder for less.

 

[Spare_change]

"We are working harder and longer for less."

Just to make sure we're on the same track, got numbers?

(I'll look at them tomorrow --- lol --- bedtime for an old man)

 

[Jackinthebox]

"We are working harder and longer for less."

Just to make sure we're on the same track, got numbers?

(I'll look at them tomorrow --- lol --- bedtime for an old man)

They broke it down in the article which was the OP.