Fast-food walkout U.S. workers strike in several cities to call attention to low wages.

reply to post by Phage

you can generalize it all you want, it doesn't change the facts, as presented.

a downturn is still a downturn, is it not ??
i didn't choose that decade to discuss ... you folks did.

the fact still remains that a majority of the population were above the identified 'poverty line' whether working minimum wage jobs or not ... and that's the fact that counts.

some 60+yrs later, it' sure is sad to admit that we've strayed so far from what actually worked to benefit everyone, then ... to merely benefiting the 'corporatocracy' of today.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Honor93

 

enhanced their trade skills via apprenticeships and had plenty left over or we wouldn't have had a 'baby boom' in the 60s.

Yes. They became skilled and no longer had to work for minimum wage.

wrong.
"skilled" labor today usually involves a college degree.

"skilled" labor then involved experience, no degree necessary, not even a high school diploma.

then, dad could have taught you how to operate a jack-hammer on the farm and whammmo, you were invited to join the UNION ... today, not so much.

then, if you could re-wire a radio, neighbors would help you open a repair shop ... today, not so much.

and also then, if you could afford college, it was usually via grants, scholarships and other avenues of free money that never had to be re-paid.
today, not so much.

reply to post by Phage

hmmmm, how is a single-parent family NOT a single bread-winner subject ?
when did that happen ?

if all families have multiple bread-winners, where or when would that be exactly ?
plenty of 'single ppl' are trying to support families, whether they created them or not

you make too many presumptions to be anywhere near factual.

ppl then went to regular pot-luck dinners.
ppl then often ate at their church several nights a week.
ppl then also supplemented their food budget via charity.
ppl then, although working minimum wage jobs, provided more for their families then ppl today can even imagine.

reply to post by Honor93

a downturn is still a downturn, is it not ??

Not a "steady downturn" as you claimed.

i didn't choose that decade to discuss ... you folks did.

You joined the discussion and injected a lot of false information.

the fact still remains that a majority of the population were above the identified 'poverty line' whether working minimum wage jobs or not ... and that's the fact that counts.

Yes. And a majority of the population is above the poverty level today.

In 1955 a single person earning minimum wage was above the single person poverty level.
In 2013 a single person earning minimum wage is a above the single person poverty level

In 1955 a two person household with an income of $2,080 (40 hours/52 weeks) was below the two person poverty level.
In 2013 a two person household with an income of $15,080 (40 hours/52 weeks) is below the two person poverty level.

Minimum wage jobs have never done a very good job of supporting a family. They are not supposed to. They are entry level positions for unskilled workers. They pay what the job is worth, not what a person needs to support a family.

reply to post by Honor93

"skilled" labor today usually involves a college degree.

I think a lot of people in various trades would not fit into that assessment. Skilled carpenters make a good wage. Electricians. Plumbers.

No degree required. Just hard work.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Aazadan

 

I know. And that's why what you were talking about isn't relevant. This whole thing is about people complaining about raising their families on the mininum wage. You moved the goalpost to a single person.

One could support a family on minimum wage with a single income earner. We can debate this point too if you would like, but if you disagree you'll find that you're incorrect. You wouldn't be able to goto college with this plan, but you could still earn a living, and even buy a house and have lots of money leftover since 30% of income wouldn't be going towards tuition.

No. The numbers don't show that. Your monthly grocery bill of $8 was ridiculously low. I showed you the actual figures here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And you have several problems with those numbers.
1. It's 1955, not 1950 which makes quite a difference seeing as how minimum wage rose 33% in 1956 from 75 cents to a dollar.
2. It's the average grocery bill. Unless your argument is that minimum wage earners are paying the average grocery bill, it's inflated.
3. I have provided actual costs of food. Cans of Campbells soup were 10 cents, cans of pork & beans were 25 cents for 3 cans. A loaf of bread could make lets say 7 sandwiches (14 slices in a loaf) and costs 12 cents. 2 packs of Kraft singles are 58 cents. That's 70 cents for 7 sandwiches or 10 cents each. A can of soup, some pork and beans, and a sandwich each day comes to 28.33 cents. That's $8.62 a month for groceries which is around what I listed and is entirely reasonable to survive on. My proposed diet varied foods up a bit more (kraft singles are quite expensive for what you get... pb&j is only 60 cents for 7 sandwiches). Many minimum wage jobs tend to be in fast food/restaurants as well... one of the traditional perks of those jobs is a free meal (though that is less so these days) which would really improve a hypothetical diet. Regardless, this shows that possible food budgets are significantly lower than you're claiming.

reply to post by Honor93

hmmmm, how is a single-parent family NOT a single bread-winner subject ?
when did that happen ?

Here is what you said;

then of course, it goes on to mention ...
"the average income of families headed by persons who were unemployed during the survey week (1959) was estimated at about $3500"

Where does it mention a single parent family? Are you familiar with the term "head of household"? Do you know what it means?

reply to post by Phage

Not a "steady downturn" as you claimed.

i didn't 'claim' it, i copied it.
please express your concern with the author, not i.

yes, i joined the discussion that you folks established ... so why are you talking about the 50s again ??

injected a lot of false information.

proof please ?

And a majority of the population is above the poverty level today

proof please ??
isn't a purpose of the 'strike' to show that working a minimum wage job is not enough to rise above today's 'poverty level' ????

In 2013 a single person earning minimum wage is a above the single person poverty level

again, proof please ?

who said today's poverty level was an acceptable figure ??
i sure didn't.

your are welcome to your opinion no matter how wrong it is, enjoy.

reply to post by Aazadan

1. It's 1955, not 1950.

Can I remind you of your premise:

If you go back to the 1950's-1960's one could own a home, goto college, and have extra money off of a minimum wage job.

I have been specifically talking about 1955 this entire conversation. Why wait till now to point out my "error"?

2. It's the average grocery bill. Unless your argument is that minimum wage earners are paying the average grocery bill, it's inflated.

The average weekly grocery bill for a two person family with an after tax income of less than $2,000 was $24.59.

Regardless, this shows that possible food budgets are significantly lower than you're claiming.

Right. So the average person taking home less than $2,000 a year was just extravagantly spending. The could have gotten by on a tenth of that.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Honor93

 

"skilled" labor today usually involves a college degree.

I think a lot of people in various trades would not fit into that assessment. Skilled carpenters make a good wage. Electricians. Plumbers.

No degree required. Just hard work.

edit on 8/31/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

proof please ??
all the carpenters i know have degrees. (except for most of the illegals)
electricians ?? show me one that doesn't have a degree or a license for that matter.
plumbers ?? same, same ... no license, no legitimate work. (no degree = no license)

skilled carpenters don't get work without a "permit" which they alone, cannot obtain.
skilled plumbers don't get work without a "permit", and those without a license, cannot obtain one.

round and round you go but you aren't getting very far, are ya ?

Originally posted by Honor93
who said today's poverty level was an acceptable figure ??

I pointed it out earlier in one of my posts, but if the poverty rate were indexed to inflation it would be just shy of $30,000 today ($29,693 I believe it came to). There's an argument that poverty shouldn't be indexed to inflation however, and US definitions of poverty have never truly been of the same scale as talking about say poverty in most African nations. As a result it makes our internal poverty line a rather poor metric to use for anything. Rather it's best to just focus on raw purchasing power.

reply to post by Honor93

all the carpenters i know have degrees. (except for most of the illegals)

That has not been my experience. I don't know any illegals.

electricians ?? show me one that doesn't have a degree or a license for that matter.
plumbers ?? same, same ... no license, no legitimate work. (no degree = no license)

Please provide evidence that a degree is required to obtain a license.

skilled carpenters don't get work without a "permit" which they alone, cannot obtain.

False. All they have to do is demonstrate their skill level. I know. I work in the business.

skilled plumbers don't get work without a "permit", and those without a license, cannot obtain one.

Please provide evidence that a degree is required to obtain a license.

reply to post by Phage

don't patronize me phage ... you aren't skilled enough

first, i copied the stats provided, those aren't my words.
second, you are the one arguing 'family' vs individual.
since when aren't families sustained by a single bread-winner ??

are you suggesting that all those killed in WWII, somehow came back in 1955 and earned a living for their surviving families ?????

and what does "head of household", an IRS term, have to do with this conversation, anyway ??
plenty of single parents were 'head of households' in the 50s or did you miss that somewhere along the way ??

Originally posted by Phage
I have been specifically talking about 1955 this entire conversation. Why wait till now to point out my "error"?

I've been using 1950. 1955 is a rather poor year to use as it happens to be right before a 33% boost to the minimum wage so it's purchasing power was at a minimum. You may be correct for that specific year I would need to run all the numbers (though I'm leaning towards it still being wrong), but not for most of the decade.

Right. So the average person taking home less than $2,000 a year was just extravagantly spending. The could have gotten by on a tenth of that.

Seeing as how I've shown they were able to have a nice place to live and have a lot of disposable income to use on whatever they wished (tuition, family, whatever). The average person was not trying to go for a budget dietary plan. If one wished to, such as needing the money elsewhere (like say... for college) they could. Is this that hard to believe? Economic policies in the post war period lead to a massive economic boom and everyone did well on it. Wealth wasn't concentrated in the top few, although they still made quite a bit of money.

reply to post by Phage


don't know where this figure came from but it's more bogus than a $3 bill

The average weekly grocery bill for a two person family with an after tax income of less than $2,000 was $24.59.

not a chance.

ETA -- that estimated, monthly, $98.36 expenditure was greater than a down payment on a car and in some cases, that was enought to buy the car outright with enough $$ left to catch dinner out and a movie.

reply to post by Honor93

i didn't 'claim' it, i copied it.

No you didn't. The term "steady downturn" is not used. You made it up. The downturn lasted 8 months. It was a small blip during a steady increase in the economy.

isn't a purpose of the 'strike' to show that working a minimum wage job is not enough to rise above today's 'poverty level' ????

Yes. Is the majority of the population striking? Is the majority of the population below the poverty level?

again, proof please ?

aspe.hhs.gov...

who said today's poverty level was an acceptable figure ??

Not I. But you were talking about it like it means something.

reply to post by Phage

That has not been my experience. I don't know any illegals.

then perhaps you shouldn't be discussing that of which your not familiar, should you ?

Please provide evidence that a degree is required to obtain a license

nope, derailing is your specialty, not mine.

besides, since you're not showing any "proof", why should anyone else ?

All they have to do is demonstrate their skill level. I know. I work in the business.

then please, demonstrate your skill level and produce a "permit", ok ?

you don't get 'jobs' that are not permitted, do ya ?
(well, off the books is another story but we aren't discussing that, are we ??)

reply to post by Aazadan

1955 is a rather poor year to use as it happens to be right before a 33% boost to the minimum wage so it's purchasing power was at a minimum.

I don't understand. Why was its purchasing power at a minimum just before an increase? But it doesn't really matter because I have been using $1/hr anyway.

Seeing as how I've shown they were able to have a nice place to live and have a lot of disposable income to use on whatever they wished (tuition, family, whatever).

I disagree. You have not shown that a minimum wage earner had a lot of disposable income.

The average person was not trying to go for a budget dietary plan.

You base this on what? The average person did not want to buy their own home with a white picket fence around it? They'd rather just eat high on the hog? I grew up in the 1950's. That ain't the way it was.

Economic policies in the post war period lead to a massive economic boom and everyone did well on it.

Most everyone did better. Minimum wage did not provide a standard of living which allowed home ownership, a college education, and some extra.

reply to post by Honor93

then perhaps you shouldn't be discussing that of which your not familiar, should you ?

What? You said all the carpenters you know have college degrees (except illegals). I said that is not true of the ones I know and that I don't know any illegals.

nope, derailing is your specialty, not mine.

You claimed that a degree is required. Asking you to back your claim up is "derailing"? So you can't provide anything that says a degree is required to obtain a license?

besides, since you're not showing any "proof", why should anyone else ?

I have backed up my statements with evidence.

then please, demonstrate your skill level and produce a "permit", ok ?

I didn't say I was a carpenter. What "permit" are you talking about. I know of no such requirement. I hire carpenters. Legally. I have never encountered a carpenter's "permit" or anything resembling it.

reply to post by Honor93

don't know where this figure came from but it's more bogus than a $3 bill

I provided the source.