the minimum wage can’t support a family. But minimum-wage jobs are important stepping-stones, allowing workers to gain experience and move up to higher-paying jobs.
The article is suggesting to just stop being poor by getting a higher wage job. What if the person can’t? No family for you?
Personally, I think the minimum wage should be abolished and a living wage implemented. The term minimum seems to cause a lot of debate about the idea of the wage or a bargaining system like many of the European states have.
A living wage should be able to pay rent, own a basic car, have health insurance, etc. As such it would be regionally adjusted to guarantee a basic standard of living.
The idea of a national minimum wage is just silly since the cost of living varies so much regionally. It ends up screwing people in areas where the cost is higher.
Or stop trying to implement price controls and just give poor people welfare
deleted by creator
Minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage. In its inception in 1938 minimum wage was $0.25 an hour. Here are things that could be purchased for 25 cents in 1938. A gallon of milk, 8 postage stamps, a matenee movie ticket, 2 gallons of gas, … Rent was half a months wages. Minimum wage was never a living wage.
deleted by creator
If It was intended to be a living wage then why wasn’t it enough to be a living wage?
I will refer to your own source.
without substantially curtailing employment
You have to look past the political propaganda and hyperbole. Minimum wage was implemented to get close to a “living wage” without hurting businesses.
It shouldn’t surprise me that you blindly believe politicians.
never INTENDED to be a living wage
FACTUALLY FALSE
“Franklin Roosevelt’s Statement on the National Industrial Recovery Act,” dated June 16 1933.
The law I have just signed was passed to put people back to work, to let them buy more of the products of farms and factories and start our business at a living rate again. This task is in two stages; first, to get many hundreds of thousands of the unemployed back on the payroll by snowfall and, second, to plan for a better future for the longer pull. While we shall not neglect the second, the first stage is an emergency job. It has the right of way.
The second part of the Act gives employment through a vast program of public works. Our studies show that we should be able to hire many men at once and to step up to about a million new jobs by October 1st, and a much greater number later. We must put at the head of our list those works which are fully ready to start now. Our first purpose is to create employment as fast as we can, but we should not pour money into unproved projects.
We have worked out our plans for action. Some of the work will start tomorrow. I am making available $400,000,000 for State roads under regulations which I have just signed, and I am told that the States will get this work under way at once. I have also just released over $200,000,000 for the Navy to start building ships under the London Treaty.
In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By “business” I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.
That’s all well and good that FDR said his goal was to have everyone have a living wage, but the minimum wage didn’t do that. A full time minimum wage worker in 1940 would have rent consume 50% food 35% which leaves 15% for clothes, medical, hygiene, & utilities. It was barely enough to survive on and many people had to forgo necessities.
I think people forget until Reagan came into power, living in poverty was normal for many people. I think people don’t realize the difference between growing up in the 70’s and current times. In the 70’s we wore hand me downs, had old cars, didn’t eat out, rarely went to movies and my father was a union auto worker who made more than most. Poverty was just a way of life.
Now everyone expects a huge home, new cars, new cell phone, new iPhone, etc
It isn’t that wages are not adequate, the expectations have changed.
Source on all your statistics and values. I provided an original source from the FDR library of speeches. I went out of my way to give you an accurate source as possible.
Now your turn. Don’t pull anecdotal numbers from your ass that you vaguely remember. Provide a real, verified source.
You seem to think people had zero money when that was implemented. Do you think it’s better today? Minimum wage covers nothing. Rent on a house is over the amount minimum wage pays.
edit
You said “minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage”
I said “never INTENDED - factually false”. He absolutely intended it.
You now saying all that other stuff is irrelevant, moving of the goal posts.
Though often considered the baseline of livable wages, it is important to note that even when it was first created, it did not represent a true living wage.
So when it was created. It wasn’t a living wage. I’ll tell you another secret. Politicians say one thing and do another.
Source on all your statistics and values.
Average rent 1940 $27 per month
https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/average-rent-by-year
Food costs
https://www.thepeoplehistory.com/40sfood.html
Meat $6 per month (1/2 lb per day) Eggs $1 per month (2 dozen) Bread $0.40 per month (3 loafs) Fruits $2 per month (1/2 lb per day) Vegitables $2 per month (1/2 lb per day) Milk $1.50 per month (2 gallons) Cereal $0.35 per month (2 boxes) Flour $0.05 per month (1 lb)
Total $13.30
You seem to think people had zero money when that was implemented.
Where did I state that?
Minimum wage covers nothing. Rent on a house is over the amount minimum wage pays.
Never made the claim that it was.
You said “minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage”
I said “never INTENDED - factually false”. He absolutely intended it.
Do not judge a bill based on what a politician says judge it on what it actually does. At the inception of the minimum wage it was below a living wage.
You now saying all that other stuff is irrelevant, moving of the goal posts.
I’m judging minimum wage based on results not the propaganda spewed out of a politicians upper oriface.
deleted by creator
The evidence that minimum wage was intended to be a living wage is that FDR said it was. Have you started believing everything a politician says?
There is no external evidence to support FDRs claim. Looking at the Fair Labor Standards Act contradicts his claim, $0.25 an hour is not enough, the act passed easily and $0.35 could have been set if they wanted to.
Banning bobafuttbucker because he posts when you won’t is a coward’s move. He’s the only one who pretends this is a legitimate community.
@HunterOfGunners @wintermute_oregon I am confused as to what this means. He’s sort of a troll, but I’m a free speech stan and don’t think he necessarily deserves to be banned.
deleted by creator
He continuously posted articles in violation of r2. It’s a two day ban to discourage violating rule 2
deleted by creator
If you think something is in violation. Report it and we will look at it. We mainly look at reported content.
The echo chamber must remain intact after all.
@HunterOfGunners @wintermute_oregon I mean TBF that’s literally the point of this community, no? To post conservative stories and watch wokebois rage over them?
Rule 2 sums it up well. We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
So no, the point isn’t to watch anyone rage off them but to have a discussion on the topic.
I help mod this one, and then I have another message board I run as well. It leans mostly liberal but with some conservatives. The main difference is that Lemmy people really don’t want a conversation; they want an echo chamber and for everyone to agree with their ideas.
In my other forum, we have discussions for the most part. Sometimes we get a little silly, but we do have some dialogue on the topics.
deleted by creator
@wintermute_oregon Maybe saying that the rage cycle is “the point” is a bit extreme, but the leftist members of this community can’t really seem to help it lol
Do you get the feeling that’s actually happening around here?
@HunterOfGunners It’s literally what happens here. Right wingers post right wing articles, left wingers spazz out in the comment section, rinse and repeat.
deleted by creator
CNN is allowed under R2 as long as it is pro-conservative or . Talking about Elon and his finances is not pro-conservative, nor is it anti-liberal. There are plenty of other places for you to talk about Elon. The topic isn’t relevant to the spirit of R2.
You also posted that Kamala Harris is not in line with R2.
I have had this conversation with you ad nauseam, and I will not repeat myself constantly. I will delete the offending material and go on with life.
I will repost rule 2 to allow you to read and digest it again.
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
As you will note, CNN as a source of information is fine as long as it is pro-conservative. If you think one of the mods will delete it, it is best to post an explanation as to how it is pro-conservative or showing a liberal bias.
Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias
… according to wintermute. Maybe it’s not so clear to the rest of us where the boundaries lie.
deleted by creator
@wintermute_oregon Well, who could have guessed that this would be the result?? Utterly shocking!! Nobody predicted this!!
One of the largest issues I see with minimum wage is its national rather than regional. That causes a very defective system.
@wintermute_oregon Different states have different minimum wages. The point of a federal minimum wage is that it sets a minimum for the states.
Even a state set wage is a bad idea. Living in Portland is different than living in Dallas.
What a load of corporate cock sucking drivel…
The author is basically saying you should be a slave until you get a good job. Can’t say I agree with this opinion piece.
He’s saying artificially inflating wages has led to job cuts.
Ok…and her solution is to exploit young and low skilled workers since they ‘don’t bring the value of a reasonable minimum wage’.
Which is better a low paying job or no job?
You obviously approve of slave labor rates so there is no point in giving you a thoughtful reply. Adios.
Understanding that there are two undesirable outcomes and that complaining about one won’t change the other must be tough for you.
You obviously approve of slave labor rates so there is no point in giving you a thoughtful reply. Adios.
Analytical thinking must be difficult for you.
Whats your opinion on importing cheap anusable labor?
Whats your opinion on importing cheap anusable labor?
I don’t know. What’s your opinion on importing cheap anusable labor?
Ah, that was a typo. Cheap and abusable.
I thought it was a typo but I still couldn’t figure it out lol. Only 1 letter too.
Minimum wage is a crappy way to improve wages. The better option are well regulated trade and labor unions, and mandatory labor representation. But since this is America, we’ve got a minimum wage, and that’s about the best we’re going to get.
The better option are well regulated trade and labor unions, and mandatory labor representation
Agreed. I’m not a fan of mandatory representation as then it becomes a self eating beast but unions are better than a minimum wage
Mandatory labor representation is a terrible idea, a union will have no motivation to work to better lives of the employees.
A union is only beholden to the employees rather than management.
A union where employees are forced to join is beholden to no-one
@jimbolauski @Skyrmir It seems less than democratic to me that employees who voted in a union many decades ago got to have the final say in whether people who work there generations later are unionized.
Except the people that elect it’s leaders, which would be the employees.
There is no requirement for union reps to be elected
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Editor’s Note: Rachel Greszler is a senior research fellow in workforce and public finance at the Roe Institute at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative thinktank in Washington, DC.
She is also a visiting fellow in workforce at the Economic Policy Innovation Center, a pro-growth research group that advocates for less government intervention.
Across the country, some of the hardest hit among the millions of people impacted by job losses or reduced hours following minimum wage increases are fast-food workers.
Pay increases that result from government mandates can eliminate entry-level job opportunities and lead to a cascade of other unintended consequences.
In short, high minimum-wage laws cut off the bottom rung of the career ladder, effectively pricing the least-advantaged workers out of employment.
In South Carolina, researchers found that the most recent minimum wage hike reduced employment by 8.9% for teens, and by 15.5% for workers with less than a high school diploma.
The original article contains 1,123 words, the summary contains 150 words. Saved 87%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Rising wages are a great thing when they are the natural result of workers becoming more productive
Oh yeah, I agree, a great thing, but then why
From 1979 to 2020, net productivity rose 61.8%, while the hourly pay of typical workers grew far slower—increasing only 17.5% over four decades (after adjusting for inflation https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
Well I guess because
Starting in the late 1970s policymakers began dismantling all the policy bulwarks helping to ensure that typical workers’ wages grew with productivity. Excess unemployment was tolerated to keep any chance of inflation in check. Raises in the federal minimum wage became smaller and rarer. Labor law failed to keep pace with growing employer hostility toward unions. Tax rates on top incomes were lowered. And anti-worker deregulatory pushes—from the deregulation of the trucking and airline industries to the retreat of anti-trust policy to the dismantling of financial regulations and more—succeeded again and again. https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
But, but, who could have pushed for these policies that deliberately devalued labor in America and reduced workers rights?
The Heritage Foundation, sometimes referred to simply as “Heritage,”[1][2] is an activist American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1973, it took a leading role in the conservative movement in the 1980s during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies were taken from Heritage Foundation studies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation
So rising wages are a great thing when it’s the natural result of more productivity, but the heritage foundation has spent the last 40 years making sure that wages don’t naturally keep pace.
Now the heritage foundation is trying to convince you that workers are better off with lower wages, happier when they can’t afford healthcare or pay rent, and more fulfilled when they work two jobs but are always on the brink of homelessness. Don’t be fooled.
@Bongo_Stryker @wintermute_oregon Well this is interesting…that net productivity you cited is far below the rate of inflation over the same time period, which is 256.49%.
You’d think this would hurt companies, but naturally it hurts the people at the bottom most.
@Bongo_Stryker @wintermute_oregon I also calculated the numbers, the companies are actually slightly disproportionately disadvantaged. Productivity over that time period for companies was 24.9% of the rate of inflation, while hourly pay rose by 28.3% of that productivity. Not even a massive difference TBH. It doesn’t seem as unfair as it sounds at first glance.
Ah yes. The classic “i ran the numbers far better than any financial analyst”
@breadsmasher Send me your financial analyst numbers that contradict this, and I will accept them.
Did I ever claim to be one? Did I post any numbers at all?
@breadsmasher Nope, so I guess I have you beat in that category 😜
You insinuated that my numbers contradicted something analysts had said, so I was thinking you had a source for what those analysts were saying, which would prove me wrong. I guess not!
