The Case for a Higher Minimum Wage

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Seeing how increasing the wage will be a job loss leader and the ones that need the jobs the most are the ones that the Socialists are wanting this for then how do we reconcile the negative effects of this increase?

How is that people were able to run companies in the 1960s on American soil by paying the equivalent of over $9/hour, and people can't do that now, even when worker output is nearly double what it was?

Edited February 11, 2014 by Harpa Timsah

[mota bhai 2,675]

you wanna go back to 1960 levels?

this data is inflation adjusted.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Your graph has a typo, so I don't trust it ("BEA's paractice"). A good source would copy edit better. I don't understand what they are trying to say anyway. Too many acronyms. I got GDP.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Harpa Timsah

[luckytxn 2,264]

They did it by not hiring more people the same as they wil do now. Possiby even letting some employees go they have now to cover the extra expenses of salary. Of course they did get creative and just hired more part time also. Also many of those companies resisting on going overseas will now feel the need to do so just to stay competitive.

How is that people were able to run companies in the 1960s on American soil by paying the equivalent of over $9/hour, and people can't do that now, even when worker output is nearly double what it was?

Edited February 11, 2014 by luckytxn

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Your graph has a typo, so I don't trust it ("BEA's paractice"). A good source would copy edit better. I don't understand what they are trying to say anyway. Too many acronyms. I got GDP.

It also says "calulated"

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

They did it by not hiring more people the same as they wil do now. Possiby even letting some employees go they have now to cover the extra expenses of salary. Of course hey did get creative and just hired more part time also. Also many of those companies resisting on going overseas will now feel the need to do so just to stay competitive.

That's what they want you to think. Have you looked at CEO earnings and compared them then to now?

Now you can hire one worker for the price of two 1960s worker, because they are more productive. Surely that gives you a lot of wiggle room.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Guilty of what? Freeing the slaves and civilizing the south?

Everything that is wrong with the USA. You're racist. Oppressive. Bigoted. Stuck up. Welcome to the crowd who isn't worthy of living with civilized humanity.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Everything that is wrong with the USA. You're racist. Oppressive. Bigoted. Stuck up. Welcome to the crowd who isn't worthy of living with civilized humanity.

Nah, I don't buy that racket.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Rebutting with "wiggle room" is not going to work. Smh

Nice chat take care.

That's what they want you to think. Have you looked at CEO earnings and compared them then to now?

Now you can hire one worker for the price of two 1960s worker, because they are more productive. Surely that gives you a lot of wiggle room.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Rebutting with "wiggle room" is not going to work. Smh

Nice chat take care.

Okay. I just looked and found a figure that said CEO pay went up 875% since 1978, and worker pay went up 5%.

Or this: "Measured with options granted, CEOs earned 18.3 times more than typical workers in 1965 and 26.5 times more in 1978; the ratio grew to 136.8-to-1 in 1995 and peaked at 411.3-to-1 in 2000. In 2012, CEO pay was 202.3 times more than typical worker pay, far higher than it was in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s."

CEOs got around 20 times more than workers in the 1960s, and now they get 200 times more than workers.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Harpa Timsah

[Teddy B 17,252]

Rebutting with "wiggle room" is not going to work. Smh

Nice chat take care.

Lucky, she makes a very good point. If workers today are more productive and are working for less money (when adjusting for inflation), then companies should have a lot more profit to play with. So where is that profit going if not to the workers?

[GandD 5,966]

Another real problem is what consumer's have gotten used to paying. Sh!t is waaaayyy too cheap, that's why we have too much of it.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Another real problem is what consumer's have gotten used to paying. Sh!t is waaaayyy too cheap, that's why we have too much of it.

This is a very big part of the problem. We never had anywhere near the amount of stuff in our house when I was a kid as we do today, we simply couldn't afford it. You had less, but the things you did have were built to last. And you saved your money to buy something, which gave you a bigger sense of pride and accomplishment, credit cards were basically non-existent. Today almost everything is cheap and disposable.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Lucky, she makes a very good point. If workers today are more productive and are working for less money (when adjusting for inflation), then companies should have a lot more profit to play with. So where is that profit going if not to the workers?

Generally, they are sitting on it or shifting it offshore. Min wage should tie to the CPI.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Brown Dwarf

[Pooky 3,781]

Does a higher minimum wage apply only to taller employees?