20 Million Felons, 47 Million on SNAP, 13 Million on Welfare, 15 Million Unemployed

Aazadan

Except as I've shown here, including actual prices from the era minimum wage was perfectly livable. People still made above it of course, but people could also live on the wage.

One problem is you adjust living standards into the mix too. You say we have better living standards today so we must adjust to that standard. I agree to a point, but have you ever thought that we might have just out priced ourselves? We could build simple/good small houses, we could build cheap/good cars, we could produce cheap but nutritious food etc.

But we don't, We build bigger/better/faster and that cost. We want all the bells and whistles and affordable to minimum wage too. We have talked about the average home price in 1956 was around 20k, but you could buy a house for 6k. Today you can buy an average price home for 200k, but you would be hard pressed to find a 70k home that wasn't a shack, but we could build a nice 70k home if there was actually a market for it.

Foods is the same way, over priced and over processed in nice packages. Real chicken and real rice goes a long way, but who would want to cook real rice and real chicken?

I agree that the dollar doesn't go as far but as I said I really think we out priced ourselves into a living standard not really needed, but wanted.

Why is it an acceptable solution that someone can't support themselves? The wage that people need roommates to get by keeps getting higher and higher. Do you not see any problem with that? I know people making $60,000 in low cost of living areas and they still need roommates... how is that in any way, shape, or form reasonable?

We have jobs and we have careers, you are suggesting that a person plans a career in a minimum wage job, and expects to live on it. When we go back to the 1950s many jobs back then were minimum wage or close to it, and those same jobs today pay above minimum wage. I'm not saying that there are no disparities, but typically a minimum wage job is for a no skill new hire going into a low skill job. Are there jobs out there that should pay more than they do, yes. Should we make ALL jobs a living wage, no.

Near Seattle they raised the minimum wage to $15 per hour. Any company can only spend 30 to 35% on wage so some people will be happy and others will not be as they get laid off as the companies get back to their 30 - 35%.

Xtrozero
One problem is you adjust living standards into the mix too. You say we have better living standards today so we must adjust to that standard. I agree to a point, but have you ever thought that we might have just out priced ourselves? We could build simple/good small houses, we could build cheap/good cars, we could produce cheap but nutritious food etc.

I have thought about that, but as technology advances it actually becomes cheaper to produce the newer item than the older one, because the newer items are mass produced and technology makes the items cheaper. Take the idea of transistors for example. It costs less to make 1 million of them today than it cost to make 1 of them in 1956. On top of that most luxuries have gotten cheaper while most necessities have gotten more expensive. As a result you can't look at the features on a good but rather the item itself. As an example of what I mean lets look at a low end TV. Here's a standalone tv from 1955 and here's a portable tv from 1956. Those require 130 and 150 hours of work to purchase (actually the 1955 would be considerably more until minimum wage went up in 1956). In comparison we can find a low end TV today like this one for $158 which is a mere 21 hours 12 minutes of work. If you take advantage of sales and better websites you could get it for even less money. That's not even going into the technical differences of the item... color screen, 1920x1080 vs 293x220 resolution, brighter picture, lower electricity use, more portable, and so on.

This is true of virtually all electronic goods which is the primary form of recreation. They've gotten much better and much cheaper. Cars surprisingly have remained fairly neutral. They've increased in quality, but while a new car in 1956 cost $2100 (2100 hours), a new car today is $20,000 which is 2684 hours. They're a little more expensive today relatively but in comparison to all other necessities they've remained very low, and there happens to be a vast used car market with numerous choices thanks to the internet... something that didn't really exist in 1956.

As I've linked before however, actual necessities have gotten more expensive and that's what's important. Luxuries are just that... luxuries. Necessities are what people need to survive and they have gotten more and more expensive.

But we don't, We build bigger/better/faster and that cost. We want all the bells and whistles and affordable to minimum wage too. We have talked about the average home price in 1956 was around 20k, but you could buy a house for 6k. Today you can buy an average price home for 200k, but you would be hard pressed to find a 70k home that wasn't a shack, but we could build a nice 70k home if there was actually a market for it.

Since coming to the realization that I will never be able to afford to own a home, I haven't really paid attention to the housing market in depth. I do know that we treat homes a lot different than other areas of the world though. In most areas of Europe for example what matters in a home isn't the size but the energy efficiency and in Japan homes are routinely torn down and rebuilt... to them the land is what's valuable, the pile of wood and metal sitting on it sees regular replacement. Markets are weird that way, I have no doubt that an inexpensive 70k home could be built... a few weeks back there was a thread about shipping container homes. They were fairly spacious by my standards (remember, I live in an apartment the size of a jail cell) at 800-1300 sqft, cheap, and could be made to look pretty nice. Some of those came in below $70,000. With the benefits of mass production or even competitive demand they could get even less expensive.

Foods is the same way, over priced and over processed in nice packages. Real chicken and real rice goes a long way, but who would want to cook real rice and real chicken?

Real food costs quite a bit of money unfortunately. Rice is cheap, but you can only eat rice for so many days in a row before you get sick of it. A couple years back I got myself a really nice crock pot. I managed to come across a stew recipe I liked, so I made a lot of it, then I made a lot of it again. By the time I was done I had eaten the same stew every night for about 3 weeks. I was so sick of it I can't even bring myself to use my crock pot now because it reminds me of the stew. Food variety is a good thing. I do my best to stay away from processed foods, but the fact is processed meat is the most affordable alternative, though fresh and frozen vegetables tend to be cheaper than their processed alternatives and taste much better. Luckily for me I love vegetables.

We have jobs and we have careers, you are suggesting that a person plans a career in a minimum wage job, and expects to live on it. When we go back to the 1950s many jobs back then were minimum wage or close to it, and those same jobs today pay above minimum wage. I'm not saying that there are no disparities, but typically a minimum wage job is for a no skill new hire going into a low skill job. Are there jobs out there that should pay more than they do, yes. Should we make ALL jobs a living wage, no.

Near Seattle they raised the minimum wage to $15 per hour. Any company can only spend 30 to 35% on wage so some people will be happy and others will not be as they get laid off as the companies get back to their 30 - 35%.

Why shouldn't all jobs be a living wage? Isn't the point of work to be able to support yourself? If the job fails to do that there's a fundamental issue with the job in the first place, even the unskilled need to support themselves. We can look at Australia as a real world example. After currency conversions their minimum wage is twice ours and they have higher taxes on top of that. Yet the price of their goods like McDonalds is only 10% higher than ours, meaning those at the lower end of the income scale are far better off. They even have a middle class and a rich class too.

To keep up with the price of actual necessities, minimum wage today would need to be 35k/year... the misnamed poverty line had it actually continued to be updated according to it's original principals would sit at 50k/year today... our median wage.

It's not just the middle class that has seen a reduction in their purchasing power over the past 35 years or so. It's virtually everyone in the bottom 90%. Only the top 10% of wages have actually increased at a rate higher than the inflation on goods, minimum wage is merely the most visible and measurable symptom of the problem. I could make all the same arguments using median wages.

reply to post by Aazadan


I love the crap pitch that if it weren't for Welfare, all those people would resort to crime.

Way to view your fellow man. If they don't get handouts, they will just steal it.

macman
reply to post by Aazadan

 

I love the crap pitch that if it weren't for Welfare, all those people would resort to crime.

Way to view your fellow man. If they don't get handouts, they will just steal it.

You are not that stupid. Stop playin dumb. You want an excuse to shoot some people, so you don't mind if there are more robbers. That is the only reason I can think of for you playing dumb. There is no way you are dumb enough to believe that taking away welfare (not hand outs, which are a whole different story - rich people are the ones who get hand outs and act like they earned them) would not generate an insane amount of crime. It would usher in lawlessness that is unheard of in America. Go live in a city like Detroit or Chicago for a while, come back, and tell me if you think getting rid of welfare would not get tens of thousands of people shot in a matter of years.

I never understood why some people play dumb about this.

I am sick of entitlement minded rich people pretending "the government" (which they purchased a long time ago) is the problem. The sell outs in the government are the problem, and they need to take a stand and actually govern. You know what the problem is? 7.40 park avenue. Notice the $7.40. Rich people think they are entitled to screw everyone else over just because they are rich. Well, not all of them, similar to how not all poor people get money via criminal activity, just most of them.

reply to post by FreeWillAnomaly


Oh good hell.

Yep. Because the thug life is the only life they know, when free stuff isn't given to them.

Welfare sounds more like appeasment then, and not just "helping" people.

I guess that we really should then remove welfare, allow those that think crime is the only way to proceed and have them removed from the gene pool I guess.

reply to post by macman


And if they remove one of your family members from the gene pool before they themselves are removed? See, while people like you and me might not have a problem defending ourselves - there are many more who can not and will not.

You just called Hell good, and it makes sense that you would think that.

Personally, I don't like the idea of my kid being the one who gets shot because some stupid rich guy decided his money is more important than my kid's life.

reply to post by FreeWillAnomaly


Super rich guy does what now???

Okay, this has become just insane and all about working in the idea of being eaten last.

Cutting welfare puts the rich guy in a better position? Just the rich guy? Or maybe people like myself as well.


Yeah, I don't bow down to people with threats like "Give me my EBT, or I will rob people". Seems that they have the capability to do that anyways and more than likely do anyways.


So.........I say bring it on.

reply to post by macman


If your decision, regardless of past "choices" whether you really had a choice or not, was between letting your kid go hungry for the day or robbing someone - trust me, you would rob someone unless you had an uncommon amount of Faith. The fact is, most people do not have that much Faith.

Like I said, you just want a reason to shoot some people.

And yes, taking away EBT would only put the ruling class in a better position - not yourself. Grown men should put the checkers board down and play chess.

reply to post by macman


Statistically during times of higher economic despairity crime rates increase.

Source

A jump in property crimes seems to occur when unemployment or poverty rates increase, according to a statewide study by Debbie Roberts, a research data programmer and analyst for the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services.

Violent and drug-related crimes also may escalate in times of recession, Roberts said, but less so than property crimes, including burglary, larceny and motor vehicle theft, according to her recent report covering a 28-year period.

When given the choice between starvation or crime people are going to chose crime.

For further analysis look at the prison population and demographic information for the majority of people incarcerated and what they are incarcerated for.

reply to post by FreeWillAnomaly

And yes, taking away EBT would only put the ruling class in a better position - not yourself. Grown men should put the checkers board down and play chess.

Actually - the ruling class is 'playing' the system - by not paying enough that people can survive, they slough off (sluff off) the extra expense by expecting the taxpayers (not the "corporate person" themselves) to pull up the slack.

The system we have now causes impoverishment. When McDonald's tells their slave-wage employees to 'break up the food into smaller pieces' - or even worse: don't eat this food, it isn't healthy - and then expects taxpayers (via the govt) to subsidize the livelihood of those same people (without whom the place would not run), it is corruption.

I'm sick and tired of the 'shareholders' being more important than the people actually doing the work that earns all those profits.
Because it's sick. And exhausting.

Yes, onequestion is right: crime escalates when resources are held hostage.
PEOPLE NEED TO EAT.
Corporations need to feed and care for their employees, and stop hiding in tax havens and loopholes. It's disgusting.

wildtimes
reply to post by FreeWillAnomaly

 

And yes, taking away EBT would only put the ruling class in a better position - not yourself. Grown men should put the checkers board down and play chess.

Actually - the ruling class is 'playing' the system - by not paying enough that people can survive, they slough off (sluff off) the extra expense by expecting the taxpayers (not the "corporate person" themselves) to pull up the slack.

The system we have now causes impoverishment. When McDonald's tells their slave-wage employees to 'break up the food into smaller pieces' - or even worse: don't eat this food, it isn't healthy - and then expects taxpayers (via the govt) to subsidize the livelihood of those same people (without whom the place would not run), it is corruption.

I'm sick and tired of the 'shareholders' being more important than the people actually doing the work that earns all those profits.
Because it's sick. And exhausting.

Yes, onequestion is right: crime escalates when resources are held hostage.
PEOPLE NEED TO EAT.
Corporations need to feed and care for their employees, and stop hiding in tax havens and loopholes. It's disgusting.

edit on 2/10/14 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

Oh yes, I agree. I have been saying the same things for a while now. However, what makes you think that taking away welfare will somehow convince the ruling class to stop screwing everyone over? If anything, they would see it as another opportunity to cash in on. That is - unless the government actually were to do their job for once and govern something other than the peasants (not likely).

Then you have the issue of a certain percentage of the population not being able to take it when someone tries to hypnotize and indoctrinate them. That percentage of the population has a hard time finding work these days. Well, work that does not entail hard labor anyways.

Overall, removing welfare (which is really just a wage subsidy, as you point out) would be catastrophic for the average Joe.

FreeWillAnomaly


If your decision, regardless of past "choices" whether you really had a choice or not, was between letting your kid go hungry for the day or robbing someone - trust me, you would rob someone unless you had an uncommon amount of Faith. The fact is, most people do not have that much Faith.

Okay then.
Now who is all for shooting someone??? I never advocated for that.

FreeWillAnomaly
Like I said, you just want a reason to shoot some people.

Uhhhhh what?

FreeWillAnomaly
And yes, taking away EBT would only put the ruling class in a better position - not yourself. Grown men should put the checkers board down and play chess.

Okay then.

reply to post by macman


You play dumb even more than a politician. I am not going to go in circles with you. You have no problem with a higher crime rate because you want an excuse to shoot someone anyways.

reply to post by onequestion


Okay then.

So, what are the economic conditions right now? And what are the crime rates right now?


But, let's for arguing sake, take this idea that if it weren't for welfare, people would turn to crime.

I say let them then. And they can appropriately reap the consequences of said action.


This idea of yours, basically holds hostage the tax payer with a threat of crime if they don't get their free stuff.
That is the huge reason why Welfare via Govt is dangerous and wrong.

reply to post by FreeWillAnomaly


You have got to be either high, or just trolling to state that I am just looking for a reason to shoot someone.
That is about the single most moronic statement in all of ATS land.

FreeWillAnomaly


Then you have the issue of a certain percentage of the population not being able to take it when someone tries to hypnotize and indoctrinate them. That percentage of the population has a hard time finding work these days. Well, work that does not entail hard labor anyways.

So Hard labor is bad.

Do you get off the couch at any part of your day? Or just dream of Socialist Utopias?

reply to post by macman


Read what you just quoted again and tell me if you are playing dumb or if you are just stupid.

reply to post by macman


Define socialism without using google. Next thing I know, you will call me a Communist. What is the difference between Socialism and Communism?

reply to post by FreeWillAnomaly


Please explain then.
As I read it, quickly mind you, it appears to suggest that labor intensive jobs are not good.

If I read it incorrectly, then it is my mistake.

reply to post by FreeWillAnomaly


Socialism= "The People" own/control industry/companies and not the owner of said company.