What a load of corporate cock sucking drivel…
Rising wages are a great thing when they are the natural result of workers becoming more productive
Oh yeah, I agree, a great thing, but then why
From 1979 to 2020, net productivity rose 61.8%, while the hourly pay of typical workers grew far slower—increasing only 17.5% over four decades (after adjusting for inflation https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
Well I guess because
Starting in the late 1970s policymakers began dismantling all the policy bulwarks helping to ensure that typical workers’ wages grew with productivity. Excess unemployment was tolerated to keep any chance of inflation in check. Raises in the federal minimum wage became smaller and rarer. Labor law failed to keep pace with growing employer hostility toward unions. Tax rates on top incomes were lowered. And anti-worker deregulatory pushes—from the deregulation of the trucking and airline industries to the retreat of anti-trust policy to the dismantling of financial regulations and more—succeeded again and again. https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
But, but, who could have pushed for these policies that deliberately devalued labor in America and reduced workers rights?
The Heritage Foundation, sometimes referred to simply as “Heritage,”[1][2] is an activist American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1973, it took a leading role in the conservative movement in the 1980s during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies were taken from Heritage Foundation studies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation
So rising wages are a great thing when it’s the natural result of more productivity, but the heritage foundation has spent the last 40 years making sure that wages don’t naturally keep pace.
Now the heritage foundation is trying to convince you that workers are better off with lower wages, happier when they can’t afford healthcare or pay rent, and more fulfilled when they work two jobs but are always on the brink of homelessness. Don’t be fooled.
the minimum wage can’t support a family. But minimum-wage jobs are important stepping-stones, allowing workers to gain experience and move up to higher-paying jobs.
The article is suggesting to just stop being poor by getting a higher wage job. What if the person can’t? No family for you?
Personally, I think the minimum wage should be abolished and a living wage implemented. The term minimum seems to cause a lot of debate about the idea of the wage or a bargaining system like many of the European states have.
A living wage should be able to pay rent, own a basic car, have health insurance, etc. As such it would be regionally adjusted to guarantee a basic standard of living.
The idea of a national minimum wage is just silly since the cost of living varies so much regionally. It ends up screwing people in areas where the cost is higher.
The minimum wage was intended to be a living wage.
The fact that you just tried to make a distinction between the two shows how far we’ve fallen.
Minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage. In its inception in 1938 minimum wage was $0.25 an hour. Here are things that could be purchased for 25 cents in 1938. A gallon of milk, 8 postage stamps, a matenee movie ticket, 2 gallons of gas, … Rent was half a months wages. Minimum wage was never a living wage.
Minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage.
It absolutely was, and more.
https://www.minimum-wage.org/articles/history
As part of the FLSA, the minimum wage was enacted at $0.25/hr to maintain a “minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency and general well-being, without substantially curtailing employment”.
FLSA also largely-restricted child labor and established an hourly work ceiling (overtime).
Better luck next time, Jimbo.
If It was intended to be a living wage then why wasn’t it enough to be a living wage?
I will refer to your own source.
without substantially curtailing employment
You have to look past the political propaganda and hyperbole. Minimum wage was implemented to get close to a “living wage” without hurting businesses.
It shouldn’t surprise me that you blindly believe politicians.
never INTENDED to be a living wage
FACTUALLY FALSE
“Franklin Roosevelt’s Statement on the National Industrial Recovery Act,” dated June 16 1933.
The law I have just signed was passed to put people back to work, to let them buy more of the products of farms and factories and start our business at a living rate again. This task is in two stages; first, to get many hundreds of thousands of the unemployed back on the payroll by snowfall and, second, to plan for a better future for the longer pull. While we shall not neglect the second, the first stage is an emergency job. It has the right of way.
The second part of the Act gives employment through a vast program of public works. Our studies show that we should be able to hire many men at once and to step up to about a million new jobs by October 1st, and a much greater number later. We must put at the head of our list those works which are fully ready to start now. Our first purpose is to create employment as fast as we can, but we should not pour money into unproved projects.
We have worked out our plans for action. Some of the work will start tomorrow. I am making available $400,000,000 for State roads under regulations which I have just signed, and I am told that the States will get this work under way at once. I have also just released over $200,000,000 for the Navy to start building ships under the London Treaty.
In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By “business” I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.
That’s all well and good that FDR said his goal was to have everyone have a living wage, but the minimum wage didn’t do that. A full time minimum wage worker in 1940 would have rent consume 50% food 35% which leaves 15% for clothes, medical, hygiene, & utilities. It was barely enough to survive on and many people had to forgo necessities.
Goalpost moving in action. The quote in my previous comment was that it wasn’t intended to be a living wage. Just take the L, dude.
Whether it was the intention or whether it was the effect are two separate threads of discussion.
The evidence that minimum wage was intended to be a living wage is that FDR said it was. Have you started believing everything a politician says?
There is no external evidence to support FDRs claim. Looking at the Fair Labor Standards Act contradicts his claim, $0.25 an hour is not enough, the act passed easily and $0.35 could have been set if they wanted to.
Source on all your statistics and values. I provided an original source from the FDR library of speeches. I went out of my way to give you an accurate source as possible.
Now your turn. Don’t pull anecdotal numbers from your ass that you vaguely remember. Provide a real, verified source.
You seem to think people had zero money when that was implemented. Do you think it’s better today? Minimum wage covers nothing. Rent on a house is over the amount minimum wage pays.
edit
You said “minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage”
I said “never INTENDED - factually false”. He absolutely intended it.
You now saying all that other stuff is irrelevant, moving of the goal posts.
Source on all your statistics and values.
Average rent 1940 $27 per month
https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/average-rent-by-year
Food costs
https://www.thepeoplehistory.com/40sfood.html
Meat $6 per month (1/2 lb per day) Eggs $1 per month (2 dozen) Bread $0.40 per month (3 loafs) Fruits $2 per month (1/2 lb per day) Vegitables $2 per month (1/2 lb per day) Milk $1.50 per month (2 gallons) Cereal $0.35 per month (2 boxes) Flour $0.05 per month (1 lb)
Total $13.30
You seem to think people had zero money when that was implemented.
Where did I state that?
Minimum wage covers nothing. Rent on a house is over the amount minimum wage pays.
Never made the claim that it was.
You said “minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage”
I said “never INTENDED - factually false”. He absolutely intended it.
Do not judge a bill based on what a politician says judge it on what it actually does. At the inception of the minimum wage it was below a living wage.
You now saying all that other stuff is irrelevant, moving of the goal posts.
I’m judging minimum wage based on results not the propaganda spewed out of a politicians upper oriface.
Though often considered the baseline of livable wages, it is important to note that even when it was first created, it did not represent a true living wage.
So when it was created. It wasn’t a living wage. I’ll tell you another secret. Politicians say one thing and do another.
I think people forget until Reagan came into power, living in poverty was normal for many people. I think people don’t realize the difference between growing up in the 70’s and current times. In the 70’s we wore hand me downs, had old cars, didn’t eat out, rarely went to movies and my father was a union auto worker who made more than most. Poverty was just a way of life.
Now everyone expects a huge home, new cars, new cell phone, new iPhone, etc
It isn’t that wages are not adequate, the expectations have changed.
Or stop trying to implement price controls and just give poor people welfare
Banning bobafuttbucker because he posts when you won’t is a coward’s move. He’s the only one who pretends this is a legitimate community.
Timeline of events, read before it gets deleted:
8 days ago:
- @[email protected] posted a CNN article and I commented acknowledging that it seems the source is now allowed here.
2 Days ago:
- I posted this article from Fox about Elon, which got removed citing R2 (not sure what about Fox or Elon is viewed as anti-conservative or not pro-conservative, but there ya go).
- I then posted this article from CNN, which is a running ticker of election 2024 stories with no specific bias, which also got removed citing R2 even though I added a comment (in line with the other rules of this community)
- I made a meta post with no intention besides getting some attention about this perceived double-standard:
- I DM’d Wintermute to gain some clarity about why these posts were perceived to have violated R2, with no response other than a community ban.
I’m posting this because I honestly feel the reasons given were complete bullshit. If Wintermute can use CNN as a source, why can’t I? If Fox/Elon stories are not pro-conservative, what is?
The only explanations I can think of are that Wintermute is deleting posts and banning users because he’s overreacting to the article title and getting triggered thinking it’s somehow anti-conservative, and/or he’s just using a BS excuse to kick me out of this community.
I have reached out directly to Wintermute and other mods on this community multiple times requesting explanations so I may make better contributions to this community going forward. As you can see, they’re falling mainly on deaf ears.
Maybe I’m a little trolly sometimes and for that I’m truly sorry, but I really try to adhere to rules for posting because I know how restrictive the rules are and think having these discussions can be valuable for everyone. But even when I follow mod examples they still block/ban me.
How is that anything besides a double-standard?
How does this behavior contribute positively to a community?
How is this behavior classified as anything to rational people besides power-tripping?
Do what you want if you’re the Mod, but if that’s what you have to do to spin the narrative in your head, maybe you’re just wrong and should find inner peace in accepting that. If you really wanted a healthy community here you would welcome this information as a basis for further discussion into our respective views. It’s now painfully clear you don’t.
CNN is allowed under R2 as long as it is pro-conservative or . Talking about Elon and his finances is not pro-conservative, nor is it anti-liberal. There are plenty of other places for you to talk about Elon. The topic isn’t relevant to the spirit of R2.
You also posted that Kamala Harris is not in line with R2.
I have had this conversation with you ad nauseam, and I will not repeat myself constantly. I will delete the offending material and go on with life.
I will repost rule 2 to allow you to read and digest it again.
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
As you will note, CNN as a source of information is fine as long as it is pro-conservative. If you think one of the mods will delete it, it is best to post an explanation as to how it is pro-conservative or showing a liberal bias.
Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias
… according to wintermute. Maybe it’s not so clear to the rest of us where the boundaries lie.
That’s exactly my point. He’s just selecting the level of bias that’s acceptable based on the article title and his reaction to it. His response to me indicates as much. For example, that Kamala post wasn’t about Kamala. For the third time, it was a running ticker of election-related stories, some conservative and some not so much, but if Wintermute actually read the comment on my post he would see I acknowledged that and stated my intentions for making such a post.
It seems here that if a post is “not conservative enough”, you risk getting banned. That’s no way to foster an actual community, or encourage good faith discussion.
- @[email protected] posted a CNN article and I commented acknowledging that it seems the source is now allowed here.
Minimum wage is a crappy way to improve wages. The better option are well regulated trade and labor unions, and mandatory labor representation. But since this is America, we’ve got a minimum wage, and that’s about the best we’re going to get.
Mandatory labor representation is a terrible idea, a union will have no motivation to work to better lives of the employees.
A union is only beholden to the employees rather than management.
A union where employees are forced to join is beholden to no-one
Except the people that elect it’s leaders, which would be the employees.
There is no requirement for union reps to be elected
The better option are well regulated trade and labor unions, and mandatory labor representation
Agreed. I’m not a fan of mandatory representation as then it becomes a self eating beast but unions are better than a minimum wage
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Editor’s Note: Rachel Greszler is a senior research fellow in workforce and public finance at the Roe Institute at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative thinktank in Washington, DC.
She is also a visiting fellow in workforce at the Economic Policy Innovation Center, a pro-growth research group that advocates for less government intervention.
Across the country, some of the hardest hit among the millions of people impacted by job losses or reduced hours following minimum wage increases are fast-food workers.
Pay increases that result from government mandates can eliminate entry-level job opportunities and lead to a cascade of other unintended consequences.
In short, high minimum-wage laws cut off the bottom rung of the career ladder, effectively pricing the least-advantaged workers out of employment.
In South Carolina, researchers found that the most recent minimum wage hike reduced employment by 8.9% for teens, and by 15.5% for workers with less than a high school diploma.
The original article contains 1,123 words, the summary contains 150 words. Saved 87%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
deleted by creator
