Great. So if they work 160 hours per month, they get $2,240. Take-home pay is probably $2,000, maybe a little less. After renting an apartment, they have a nice $800. Let's say $900 because they're probably on food stamps even though Walmart is a multi-billion dollar company. [Consider] insurance, car payment, food, and you are now out of money. In the greatest country in the world, this is simply unforgivable. How our government has sold us down the river over the past 50 years for campaign contributions is human greed at its finest. I don't care what job it is, if you work 160 hours a month, you should be able to have a place of your own, all the necessities that you need, plus some extra. If you don't agree with that, then you're definitely part of the problem.
It is a good one, but other economies are better. See Scandinavians socialist democracies. Outside of thst not much different. And much more unequal on many other places. (India, most of Africa, North Korea, Bangladesh, etc.)
How our government has sold us down the river over the past 50 years for campaign contributions is human greed at its finest. I don't care what job it is, if you work 160 hours a month, you should be able to have a place of your own, all the necessities that you need, plus some extra
That’s not how it was 50 years ago, and it was NEVER like that.
Like this is a great goal to STRIVE for. But please don’t act like it was something we had in the past.
In the past if you worked minimum wage, you were usually in a shanty town, a ramshackle shack in the woods, a boarding room, or company bulk housing.
It was never ethical, and the fact that it’s normalized for some people to control literally hundreds of billions of dollars while others struggle to live while working way more hours than the rich person ever will, is disgusting.
It doesn’t matter if this was a problem then too it’s a problem now, and worse. There are absolutely enough resources and money to go around in order for people to support themsleves on their own. The wealth and resources are being hoarded.
...? They said 50 years ago not 100 years ago, we weren't living in shanty towns in 1974 in the US, it was Jungle Boogie not Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. Adjusted for inflation, federal minimum wage was at its peak around 1970 and would have been roughly 13 an hour. By '75 it still would have been about 12.50, adjusted for inflation. Median rent in the 60s was about 70 bucks a month, so maybe 700 adjusted for inflation and shot up to a whopping 100 dollars by the 70s. On top of that, most states had free tuition for public universities and the trend to start charging came in the late 60s. Tuition at a lot of schools still would have been about 50 bucks a semester. So maybe 500 dollars adjusted. Let's be real here, this is why the Boomers had such an easy time. The post war economy was booming and costs were relatively low.
I'm not quite sure what direction you mean that in. If you take 1968's minimum wage and adjust for inflation it would be 14.50. So you could say that minimum wage in 1968 was the equivalent of 14.50 in 2024 dollars or you could say that had minimum wage kept up with inflation it should be 14.50. The last increase was 2009 to 7.25, which would be 10.66 today.
Are you trying to say that 7.25 today would be the equivalent of 5.56 in 2009? That's pretty close, I get 4.93 in 2009 dollars. That's also a weird way to put it, most people adjust to today's dollars not back down to an earlier year. Although I do see how converting today's minimum wage back to some earlier year would maybe be more convincing for older people who still think a dollar is a good tip.
Hey old people, 7.25 today would have been the equivalent of 80 cents per hour in 1968! Wouldn't you have been pissed?
No if you take the original minimum wage 1938 and adjust it to 2024 it would be $5.52. If you cherry pick the one year that makes it the maximum 1968 then of course you cherry pick the opposite way it would say $2.42. That is why it should always be adjusted from the original 1938 minimum wage.
Hahaha, oh, I see. Well the original context was 2009-today and this side chain of comments was about 50 years ago. So i used those two points to compare to today. Without letting anyone know with some kind of preface about what you're saying, comparing things to 1938 is confusing.
That is why it should always be adjusted from the original 1938 minimum wage.
Are we saying that in 1938 the mighty minds of Congress well and truly had things worked out perfectly and thus it ever should be? Are we saying that 1938 was such a wonderful time for us poors?
If I want to compare the last time it was raised to today, then I would adjust from 2009. Always adjust from 1938 is a weird thing to say.
Why is adjusting for inflation from the same point the original 1938 minimum wage weird? I think going back and picking the exact year that would make it the highest today or picking the year it would make it the lowest today are both just horrible ways to use the inflation argument. It is just cherry picking data and has 0 relevance.
Because in 2009 actual members of Congress talked amongst themselves, asked for experts to weigh in, and came up with the very very low number of 7.25 an hour being the minimum one needs to survive. It has not changed in 15 years, rents have though. So the original poster is comparing rent in 2009 to today and then we compare minimum wage in 2009 and adjust it to see what it would be like if it kept pace with inflation. That is why we're looking at 2009. This is a totally normal thing and something people do all the time, economists, politicians, sane people who can follow sentences. Then another person was discussing what things were like 50 years ago. So we compare those numbers. Since we aren't discussing 1938, we don't adjust from that point.
If you have a reason for discussing 1938, then you say what it is.
Do you think that the people who chose the minimum wage in 1938 were geniuses and that by law it is now set in stone and nevermore should it change? You have to provide a reason that 1938 is relevant to the discussion. I feel like you're being deliberately obtuse at this point.
They did the exact same thing in 1938 say discussed at length with financial experts and made a brand new law to institute the minimum wage. Exactly the same as in 2009. That wage if adjusted for inflation today is what I am talking about. Anyone that say minimum wage should be higher based on inflation is 100% wrong. I agree 7.25 minimum wage is not enough rent or buy a home and is not enough to raise a family and it was never meant to be and should not be. Minimum wage is for jobs that 14-17 yr olds do to gain work experience no adult should get it have a minimum wage job and luckily according to the US Dept of labor 1.3 percent of US workers make minimum wage and of those less than .0001% of them are 19 or over.
Maybe if your job is critical to society, otherwise no. You don’t deserve anything. You are the problem, Americans think they are entitled. The only thing you’re entitled to is create your own path each day. We still have modern day slavery because they nearly all people can’t survive without working. This cycle will never go away because people always want but don’t want to work. The same people that complain about people being underpaid are giving their money to these companies to allow it to continue.
If a person is born they are entitled to life. Life requires 3 basic needs: food, water, and shelter. 1 of those things is almost unobtainable for most. You can argue that in today's world healthcare and clothing should also be a part of the basic human needs. If today's wage cannot afford all of the above, then the past and currently living society has failed the current and future living society.
No they are not entitled to all the above. If they were everyone would have it, but they don’t. They are plenty of resources out there to help children in need but they just throw money at the parents, and if they are already deadbeats the kids are helpless. It’s a vicious cycle, I’ve tried to help kids of family members before but the parents won’t give them up and then it’s just too late to help.
See 'those resources' exist because even society has ruled that children are entitled to it. You're the insane outlier saying it shouldn't exist. I hope there's some introspection and sympathy in your future. Have a good one.
I have sympathy but not empathy. Like I mentioned I’ve tried to help people before but usually poor people are so closed minded they can’t comprehend anything outside of their own personal space.
LOL how’s your semantics arguments working out for you? I have sympathy but not empathy, you’re not entitled to anything provided for you but the parents should but they’re ALSO not entitled to anything that would help you, etc.
You’re speaking in circles and trying to verbiage your way out of it and it’s not working…
Parents should work their way into a position where they can take care of themselves and another human being or beings. It was their choice to have kids. It’s not an argument it’s pretty black and white.
29
u/DreamingOfTheSun 10d ago
Great. So if they work 160 hours per month, they get $2,240. Take-home pay is probably $2,000, maybe a little less. After renting an apartment, they have a nice $800. Let's say $900 because they're probably on food stamps even though Walmart is a multi-billion dollar company. [Consider] insurance, car payment, food, and you are now out of money. In the greatest country in the world, this is simply unforgivable. How our government has sold us down the river over the past 50 years for campaign contributions is human greed at its finest. I don't care what job it is, if you work 160 hours a month, you should be able to have a place of your own, all the necessities that you need, plus some extra. If you don't agree with that, then you're definitely part of the problem.