Progressives always talk about mininum wage

[thereisnospoon]

No crap dude. CPI does nothing but screw American workers and retirees.

How much was a t-bone steak at the grocery store in 1970? How much today?

A house vs today?

A car vs today?

American workers, collectively, make all the money for companies that do commerce in the United States of America.



I see you didn't bother to click the link and get educated, so let me help.

1. CPI doesn't factor that 80% of the population lives within 200 miles of water.

2. CPI doesn't factor in fluctuations of rent.

3. CPI doesn't factor in ounces for packaged food have decreased since 1970. For instance, a large box of corn flakes weighs less today than then, so a consumer has to buy more often.

4. CPI doesn't factor in the disproportionate costs of buying a home where the 80% live vs. the 20%.



Which is the problem, everyone should. 1970, 0.26/pound, 2013, $8.00/pound.



Which again is the problem. $4,000.00 in 1970. $25,000.00 in 2013.



I NEVER wrote that things were 'glorious' in 1970. I have pointed out that buying power of the middle class is far less than in 1970.



Most of corporate America IS 'eeeeeevil', and the American worker IS being screwed.

Let me tell you something....Your memory is lying to you.
Most households had ONE car. One TV. One telephone. We saved our money for a "rainy day" in case the wash machine broke and we had enough in the bank to pay a guy to get it fixed. Most folks idea of a dryer was a clothes line in the back yard or in winter, the basement.

Most households could live on a one person income. Mom stayed home.

1970 was per-disposable electronics.

Most had money left over after the bills were paid. 1970 was pre-income/cost disproportionate days.

Wanna bet? You don't know shit.
When I was a kid, mom stayed home and Dad worked. We had NO luxuries. And Dad was a skilled crane mechanic and worked in a union shop and made what was considered a good living. We lived in a single family home in the burbs of NYC.
We had one car. One tv in the house. My parents thought it was most important to save rather than spend. Most people on my street lived the same way.
Don't tell me buying power was stronger.
It wasn't..There was never a T-bone steak in our refrigerator. That cut of meat was too expensive. We did not have a clothes dryer. We did not have air conditioning.
Your analysis is incorrect.
What does living within 200 miles of water have to do with anything?
Even though home ownership peaked in the mid 2000's, still we have high a percentage of home ownership. However,owning a home is not for everyone.
And nor should it be. Owning a home is not an entitlement.
Rents do not fluctuate all that much. The marketplace takes care of that.
If anything, rental rates tend to be low in developing cities such as those in the South.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Really? So tell us the effective rate.

Well, the top corporate rate is 35%. Executive pay above $1 million is not deductible.
To earn the $19 million that is, the corporation has to earn $29.23 million.
The top individual rate is 39.6%, on income over $400,000.
Ignore the lower rate below that and the CEO pays $7.92 million.

The corporation earned $30.23 million and paid $10.23 million in taxes.

$10.23 + $7.92 = $18.15 million/ $30.23 million = 60%.

Then you have deferred compensation which you can invest in the property you live, family trusts, corporate identity in a non taxed state, etc., etc., etc. Which brings the number less than you pay.

Yeah? And? Where's the problem?

 

[OnePercenter]

American workers, collectively, make all the money for companies that do commerce in the United States of America.



I see you didn't bother to click the link and get educated, so let me help.

1. CPI doesn't factor that 80% of the population lives within 200 miles of water.

2. CPI doesn't factor in fluctuations of rent.

3. CPI doesn't factor in ounces for packaged food have decreased since 1970. For instance, a large box of corn flakes weighs less today than then, so a consumer has to buy more often.

4. CPI doesn't factor in the disproportionate costs of buying a home where the 80% live vs. the 20%.



Which is the problem, everyone should. 1970, 0.26/pound, 2013, $8.00/pound.



Which again is the problem. $4,000.00 in 1970. $25,000.00 in 2013.



I NEVER wrote that things were 'glorious' in 1970. I have pointed out that buying power of the middle class is far less than in 1970.



Most of corporate America IS 'eeeeeevil', and the American worker IS being screwed.



Most households could live on a one person income. Mom stayed home.

1970 was per-disposable electronics.

Most had money left over after the bills were paid. 1970 was pre-income/cost disproportionate days.

Wanna bet? You don't know shit.
When I was a kid, mom stayed home and Dad worked. We had NO luxuries. And Dad was a skilled crane mechanic and worked in a union shop and made what was considered a good living. We lived in a single family home in the burbs of NYC.
We had one car. One tv in the house. My parents thought it was most important to save rather than spend. Most people on my street lived the same way.
Don't tell me buying power was stronger.
It wasn't..There was never a T-bone steak in our refrigerator. That cut of meat was too expensive. We did not have a clothes dryer. We did not have air conditioning.
Your analysis is incorrect.
What does living within 200 miles of water have to do with anything?
Even though home ownership peaked in the mid 2000's, still we have high a percentage of home ownership. However,owning a home is not for everyone.
And nor should it be. Owning a home is not an entitlement.
Rents do not fluctuate all that much. The marketplace takes care of that.
If anything, rental rates tend to be low in developing cities such as those in the South.

You still don't get the CPI isn't reflective of actual numbers?

You still don't get that the Government is rating a state with low population the same as a state with high population? States with higher population have higher costs.

Who mentioned 'entitlements'?

Rents don't vary that much? You haven't traveled much, have you? A $500.00/mo apartment in Nevada rents for $1200.00 or more in CA, but the two states weigh equally in CPI.

 

[OnePercenter]

Well, the top corporate rate is 35%. Executive pay above $1 million is not deductible.
To earn the $19 million that is, the corporation has to earn $29.23 million.
The top individual rate is 39.6%, on income over $400,000.
Ignore the lower rate below that and the CEO pays $7.92 million.

The corporation earned $30.23 million and paid $10.23 million in taxes.

$10.23 + $7.92 = $18.15 million/ $30.23 million = 60%.

Then you have deferred compensation which you can invest in the property you live, family trusts, corporate identity in a non taxed state, etc., etc., etc. Which brings the number less than you pay.

Yeah? And? Where's the problem?

The problem is with the 60% number from the previous poster.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Wanna bet? You don't know shit.
When I was a kid, mom stayed home and Dad worked. We had NO luxuries. And Dad was a skilled crane mechanic and worked in a union shop and made what was considered a good living. We lived in a single family home in the burbs of NYC.
We had one car. One tv in the house. My parents thought it was most important to save rather than spend. Most people on my street lived the same way.
Don't tell me buying power was stronger.
It wasn't..There was never a T-bone steak in our refrigerator. That cut of meat was too expensive. We did not have a clothes dryer. We did not have air conditioning.
Your analysis is incorrect.
What does living within 200 miles of water have to do with anything?
Even though home ownership peaked in the mid 2000's, still we have high a percentage of home ownership. However,owning a home is not for everyone.
And nor should it be. Owning a home is not an entitlement.
Rents do not fluctuate all that much. The marketplace takes care of that.
If anything, rental rates tend to be low in developing cities such as those in the South.

You still don't get the CPI isn't reflective of actual numbers?

You still don't get that the Government is rating a state with low population the same as a state with high population? States with higher population have higher costs.

Who mentioned 'entitlements'?

Rents don't vary that much? You haven't traveled much, have you? A $500.00/mo apartment in Nevada rents for $1200.00 or more in CA, but the two states weigh equally in CPI.

A $500.00/mo apartment in Nevada rents for $1200.00 or more in CA, but the two states weigh equally in CPI.

the rents will be whatever the market will bear

 

[OnePercenter]

You still don't get the CPI isn't reflective of actual numbers?

You still don't get that the Government is rating a state with low population the same as a state with high population? States with higher population have higher costs.

Who mentioned 'entitlements'?

Rents don't vary that much? You haven't traveled much, have you? A $500.00/mo apartment in Nevada rents for $1200.00 or more in CA, but the two states weigh equally in CPI.

A $500.00/mo apartment in Nevada rents for $1200.00 or more in CA, but the two states weigh equally in CPI.

the rents will be whatever the market will bear

So what! The post is CPI equality.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No crap dude. CPI does nothing but screw American workers and retirees.

How much was a t-bone steak at the grocery store in 1970? How much today?

A house vs today?

A car vs today?

American workers, collectively, make all the money for companies that do commerce in the United States of America.



I see you didn't bother to click the link and get educated, so let me help.

1. CPI doesn't factor that 80% of the population lives within 200 miles of water.

2. CPI doesn't factor in fluctuations of rent.

3. CPI doesn't factor in ounces for packaged food have decreased since 1970. For instance, a large box of corn flakes weighs less today than then, so a consumer has to buy more often.

4. CPI doesn't factor in the disproportionate costs of buying a home where the 80% live vs. the 20%.



Which is the problem, everyone should. 1970, 0.26/pound, 2013, $8.00/pound.



Which again is the problem. $4,000.00 in 1970. $25,000.00 in 2013.



I NEVER wrote that things were 'glorious' in 1970. I have pointed out that buying power of the middle class is far less than in 1970.



Most of corporate America IS 'eeeeeevil', and the American worker IS being screwed.

Let me tell you something....Your memory is lying to you.
Most households had ONE car. One TV. One telephone. We saved our money for a "rainy day" in case the wash machine broke and we had enough in the bank to pay a guy to get it fixed. Most folks idea of a dryer was a clothes line in the back yard or in winter, the basement.

Most households could live on a one person income. Mom stayed home.

1970 was per-disposable electronics.

Most had money left over after the bills were paid. 1970 was pre-income/cost disproportionate days.

3. CPI doesn't factor in ounces for packaged food have decreased since 1970. For instance, a large box of corn flakes weighs less today than then, so a consumer has to buy more often.

You think the government measures inflation by the box, without regard to weight? LOL!

 

[The2ndAmendment]

As with Toro, ToddsterPatriot and I have major issues over the Federal Reserve (I consider it a monopoly of currency by force of law), but I've thoroughly enjoyed Toro and Toddster Patriot's smackdown of the Libtards on this thread.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Wanna bet? You don't know shit.
When I was a kid, mom stayed home and Dad worked. We had NO luxuries. And Dad was a skilled crane mechanic and worked in a union shop and made what was considered a good living. We lived in a single family home in the burbs of NYC.
We had one car. One tv in the house. My parents thought it was most important to save rather than spend. Most people on my street lived the same way.
Don't tell me buying power was stronger.
It wasn't..There was never a T-bone steak in our refrigerator. That cut of meat was too expensive. We did not have a clothes dryer. We did not have air conditioning.
Your analysis is incorrect.
What does living within 200 miles of water have to do with anything?
Even though home ownership peaked in the mid 2000's, still we have high a percentage of home ownership. However,owning a home is not for everyone.
And nor should it be. Owning a home is not an entitlement.
Rents do not fluctuate all that much. The marketplace takes care of that.
If anything, rental rates tend to be low in developing cities such as those in the South.

You still don't get the CPI isn't reflective of actual numbers?

You still don't get that the Government is rating a state with low population the same as a state with high population? States with higher population have higher costs.

Who mentioned 'entitlements'?

Rents don't vary that much? You haven't traveled much, have you? A $500.00/mo apartment in Nevada rents for $1200.00 or more in CA, but the two states weigh equally in CPI.

You're the one who brought the CPI into the discussion. Quite frankly I don't a rat's ass about it.
Who mentioned entitlements? You did. You stated that everyone should be able to afford a T-Bone steak. That is an example of an sense of entitlement.
No, costs are driven by population centers. For example. The cost of living in NYC far exceeds the COL Upstate. Same state. Two different markets.
So, if one does not have the skills to earn a living that permits them to endure the COL in NYC, they should not live there.
You can harp on the CPI all day long. It's irrelevant.
The issue here is what one does with their earnings once they get them.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Then you have deferred compensation which you can invest in the property you live, family trusts, corporate identity in a non taxed state, etc., etc., etc. Which brings the number less than you pay.

Yeah? And? Where's the problem?

The problem is with the 60% number from the previous poster.

That's YOUR opinion....

 

[Mac1958]

Still no answers to my direct questions.

Okay. I'm happy to answer yours.

In a business (assuming we're talking about something larger than a Mom & Pop) the value of each person and position ranges. A salesperson deals with rejection and paperwork and competition and many other challenges and is also at the mercy of the value of the product they are selling vs. that of the competition. Yet they bring in the business and are usually compensated near the top of the heap, primarily because people of their skillset are very difficult to find and keep.

A low-end clerk or a janitor or a french fry specialist in the cafeteria is not bringing in business, their responsibilities are fewer and less important; their position -- not them personally, only their position -- is far easier to replace and does not generate revenue. Often, the very exisitence of their position is merely to take easier tasks off the plate of those who DO generate value and revenue. These people are easily replaced because there is a long line people who would be more than willing, based on their own financial needs, to take their position tomorrow, if not this afternoon. It would be stupid for a business owner to pay more than the market rate for this position.

What is the market rate for a position? That's easily determined by observing -- wait for it -- the market.

A janitor does not create revenue but still has to be paid.

Low-end employees don't generate revenue, so they are looked at by a business owner essentially as a fixed cost.

.

Does a janitor generate profit directly? No
But the lack of a janitor will lead to loss of profit

You keep employees because the create wealth for you. The amount of that wealth that you give to those employees is the topic of discussion.

There are literally millions of people who have floor sweeping skills.
And THAT is the issue. Labor is a commodity. And as such is subject to the laws of supply and demand. Add in the education factor and we have the ingredients for the setting of wages.
The more available workers for a certain occupation, the lower the wage for that job.
I just do not see where it is you people get the idea that because a person 'works real hard' at a menial job deserves to be paid the same as a higher or highly skilled person doing something much more complicated.
I don't care how much 'time' someone has 'put in' on their job. It's still the same mindless no skill job it was 15 years ago.

It just goes along with an overall willingness to lower standards in the name of "fairness", rather than expecting a person to put forth the effort required to raise their game. That would be too hard, it would require sacrifice & discipline, and it's just not "fair". This kind of attitude has become part of our culture.

A prime reason for the decay of the country.

.

 

[dblack]

It just goes along with an overall willingness to lower standards in the name of "fairness", rather than expecting a person to put forth the effort required to raise their game. That would be too hard, it would require sacrifice & discipline, and it's just not "fair". This kind of attitude has become part of our culture.

A prime reason for the decay of the country.

.

I'm always a little perplexed by the tendency for people to talk about wages in moral terms, focusing on what people 'deserve', which utterly misses the point. The fact of the matter is, low wages for a particular job simply reflect how much we, as a society, value the work being done. We can arbitrarily assign some dollar amount to those low value jobs, but the relative value won't change simply by decree.

 

[Mac1958]

It just goes along with an overall willingness to lower standards in the name of "fairness", rather than expecting a person to put forth the effort required to raise their game. That would be too hard, it would require sacrifice & discipline, and it's just not "fair". This kind of attitude has become part of our culture.

A prime reason for the decay of the country.

.

I'm always a little perplexed by the tendency for people to talk about wages in moral terms, focusing on what people 'deserve', which utterly misses the point. The fact of the matter is, low wages for a particular job simply reflect how much we, as a society, value the work being done. We can arbitrarily assign some dollar amount to those low value jobs, but the relative value won't change simply by decree.

Yup.

Unfortunately, relative value in a market economy is just too complicated to explain. "Here's more for you" is much easier, and it gets you more votes.

.

 

[editec]

You know kiddies, SOME OF US were working adults in the 70s and remember what the cost of living was like compared to our wages.

American workers were much MUCH better than they are today.

If you believe the GOVERNMENTS CPI numbers its because you don't enough background history to know what a GREAT BIG FAT LIE it is.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You know kiddies, SOME OF US were working adults in the 70s and remember what the cost of living was like compared to our wages.

American workers were much MUCH better than they are today.

If you believe the GOVERNMENTS CPI numbers its because you don't enough background history to know what a GREAT BIG FAT LIE it is.

What are the real numbers for CPI?

 

[thereisnospoon]

It just goes along with an overall willingness to lower standards in the name of "fairness", rather than expecting a person to put forth the effort required to raise their game. That would be too hard, it would require sacrifice & discipline, and it's just not "fair". This kind of attitude has become part of our culture.

A prime reason for the decay of the country.

.

I'm always a little perplexed by the tendency for people to talk about wages in moral terms, focusing on what people 'deserve', which utterly misses the point. The fact of the matter is, low wages for a particular job simply reflect how much we, as a society, value the work being done. We can arbitrarily assign some dollar amount to those low value jobs, but the relative value won't change simply by decree.

Yes, Questions such as "how are these people supposed to support their kids?"...
That is not the business owner's problem. He or she was not there when the children were made. Nor was the business owner present when this worker thought it more important as a student to find ways to 'get by' instead of doing their work and perhaps find a career path that might take them beyond menial work.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You know kiddies, SOME OF US were working adults in the 70s and remember what the cost of living was like compared to our wages.

American workers were much MUCH better than they are today.

If you believe the GOVERNMENTS CPI numbers its because you don't enough background history to know what a GREAT BIG FAT LIE it is.

That's a load of 'bring back the good old days' nonsense.
I lived it. We were what was considered 'middle class'...Back then, the difference between middle class and one step down was the ability to move to the suburbs thanks to the GI Bill which offered interest rate mortgages to Veterans. Otherwise, most of the families on our street could not afford the homes in which they lived and raised their families.
Very few of us could afford the stuff people buy today.
And even fewer of the parents used credit for anything.
As a matter of fact, the so called buying power people have today is no different that it was 40 years ago. The difference is today, people go into debt for the things they want.
We were a much more disciplined society when I was a kid.

 

[KissMy]

You know kiddies, SOME OF US were working adults in the 70s and remember what the cost of living was like compared to our wages.

American workers were much MUCH better than they are today.

If you believe the GOVERNMENTS CPI numbers its because you don't enough background history to know what a GREAT BIG FAT LIE it is.

What are the real numbers for CPI?

8.5% under Bush & 2% under Obama

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You know kiddies, SOME OF US were working adults in the 70s and remember what the cost of living was like compared to our wages.

American workers were much MUCH better than they are today.

If you believe the GOVERNMENTS CPI numbers its because you don't enough background history to know what a GREAT BIG FAT LIE it is.

What are the real numbers for CPI?

8.5% under Bush & 2% under Obama

8.5%? Any backup for that claim?

 

[KissMy]

From 2001 until the 2008 economic crash regardless of what the rigged CPI shows. Oil, Land, Houses, Utilities, Cotton, Corn, Wheat, Soybeans, Silver, Gold & Copper, Food, Water, Electricity, Sewer, Property Taxes, etc all rose more than 8.5% per year over that period. It was definatly not wage push inflation, it was all Wall-street & Government debt money creation. They stole the wealth from the workers that created it.