Minimum wage in 1974 was $10/hr .....

Right wingers keep harping about the "good ol' days," but back then minimum wage kept you above the poverty lines and the unions were huge and kept the middle class vibrant.

In 1974 the minimum wage was $2/hr - but $2/hr back then had the buying power of $10.08/hr. In fact, the buying power of minimum wage kept rising from 1930-1983 (who became president then, hmmmmmm) from $4/hr to $11/hr.

But once Reagan got into profit became more important than America and Americans - so sociopathic greedy bastards were put into power and the result was the destruction of the middle class, unions, and the minimum wage.

Isn't this proof that we need to bring minimum wage back to at least $11/hr to bring us back to where we were before the great Reagan decline ?

http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm

http://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=1&year=1974

 

They didn't have Obamacare back then though. Lemmi Google around a bit and see what that actually makes the minimum wage.

According to:
http://www.heritage.org/research/re...are-and-minimum-wage-hike-on-workers-and-jobs

The effective current minimum wage is $10.30 (and it will be higher in some states). So we're already above the 1974 level.

 

and if the government didnt lie about the inflation rate the last five years you would have gotten a raise..and who was the president in the last 5 years?

 

wow, Obamacare right away instead of discussing the topic - gutless right wing response - so typical - regardless, the minimum wage today is around $7.75 - well below the $11 peak before Reagan came to power

btw, heritage is a horrible source of facts - they say "The President now proposes raising the national minimum wage to $10.10 per hour. Coupled with the employer penalty and existing taxes, this would raise the minimum cost of hiring a full-time worker to $12.71 per hour. Employers would respond by eliminating jobs and cutting workers to part-time status, making it significantly more difficult for unskilled workers to get ahead."

actually, no jobs would need to be eliminated if these greedy employers would be willing to make a little less.
that's the whole point - that today's business owners and CEOs are making more than their counterparts were back before the 80's.
they would rather destroy the middle class so they can make more.
it's financial exploitation.

 

more right wing deflective blabber - what does this have to do with the fact that the CEOs and business owners are underpaying instead of paying a livable wage ?

 

Yet the $1000 dollars I hid under my mattresse from my $3.35 an hour first job at arby's only has like the buying power of around $300 dollars now. Thanks a bunch all in government and the fed's....

 

everything..companies use the rate of inflation to figure out how much of a persons wage should be increased..so when the fed gov says it is just gone up 1.2% thats what the pay you...ever go to the store and compare the prices in the last 5 years?

and quit your liberal crying..ITS NOT FAIR crap

 

I have a question why would a business bother if you liberals keep enabling the workers? Wouldn't they revolt? Riot?

 

Are you thinking they're seperate topics?

What I mean is that what's important is the value of what the worker recieves for their work, whether they're paid in dollars or Kumquats, or whether it is given to them directly or if it is paid to the government on their behalf.

As it is currently workers recieve a blend of cash and insurance.

Just what I found on google, and bias in the conclusions doesn't mean their figures or off. Feel free to find your own source for what an employer has to pay, minimum, per hour of full time employee labor.

Actually I'd be willing to throw out some rep if you can find some info on CEO compensation as a fraction of operation costs, to seperate out the effects of having, generally, much larger much more distributed companies.

i.e. if other things are equal for the same fraction of employee's wages a CEO of a million employee company would make a thousand times what a CEO of a thousand employee company would make. I haven't seen such an analysis.

 

Here's a fact for the "raise the minimum wage fools". While in high school, under a school training program, I worked for a production company for minimum wage. I went to school half a day in the morning and worked my job the latter half of the day. When minimum wage was raised I was about to lose my job but the company received a deferment to continue working me at the old rate during the school term. But they had to pay me the new rate during the summer months when school was out. I was happy to have a job, so I could buy school clothes, lunch money, and would have been happy to keep working at the old rate, even in the summer. My point being that when the rate is raised you can bet your boots jobs will be lost. Can you imagine that, the government tries to help someone but ends us costing them their job.

 

And we've raised minimum wage several times since minimum wage was 2 bucks an hour and that's largely why ten bucks now buys two dollars worth of stuff.

 

How silly. A typical mortgage in 1974 was $200,000... so whats your point?

 

Then you and Heritages should have no problem with raising the federal law to $10.30, since, as you claim, it is effectively already there.

- - - Updated - - -

Prove your claim the Govt lied about the inflation rate. Thank you.

- - - Updated - - -

I doubt that very much. Care to back it up?

 

Casual fallacy.

Prove how raising the minimum wage caused inflation.

- - - Updated - - -

Here's a fact for the "I got a story fools".

One person's internet anecdote is not evidence of statistical fact.

 

It's real easy you pay someone 10 dollars and hour for 2 dollars worth of work prices eventually catch up.

 

Thanks. That is about the level of thought and proof I expected to see.

 

Gee, teens must have had great summer jobs back in the 70s before mean old Reagan took office in 1983... wiat, what?

 

It's simple common sense but then leftist always seem to be more than a bit short of that commodity. Mr. businessman only has a limited number of ways in which to recoup these new cost imposed upon him by government fiat and wholly unconnected to productivity. One of them and far and away the easiest and least complicated is to raise his prices.

 

It's not common sense at all. You are simply taking the effect on the price of one thing, low cost labor, and claiming, without basis, logic, support or apparently thought, that it will result in an overall rise in prices in the economy. Which is not true at all. Increasing the MW of the folks working and McDonald's might increase the price of a Big Mac somewhat, but it's not going to affect the price of legal counsel at all.

An overall increase in prices cannot happen unless there is an increase in the effective money supply.

 

So it was $2 an hour?

(there's a serious typo in your subject line)

 

What a load of self serving,liberal drek...Congress writes the laws that set the minimum wage,NOT the president......but seing as how Owebama thinks he can amend and write laws without congress,I cam understand your confusion.

 

Don't they teach in Texas schools that under the Constitution, the president has to sign a bill for it to become law, unless there is a 2/3 majority in both chambers?

 

OK. Please tell me which minimum wage bill Reagan vetoed.

 

If $2 an hr in 1974 equals $10 in todays money, stands to reason a mortgage would work the same way. Unless, of course, the theory can only be used to prove the liberals case.

The whole argument is nonsense. Surely you're aware of that.

 

And how does that negate the fact that congress writes the laws?,And as you've pointed out,they can overide presidential veto

How many presidents have vetoed an amendment to the 1938 fair labor practices act?.Nixon was one,I know..