- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Former Ohio Gov. Strickland tried living on Min. Wage- here is his story
Posted on 7/28/14 at 3:44 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
Posted on 7/28/14 at 3:44 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:$0.75
What was the minimum wage in 1945?
2
Posted on 7/28/14 at 3:45 pm to FT
But that's not whats being argued. People want to expand assistance and raise minimum wage.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 3:46 pm to FT
Posted on 7/28/14 at 3:46 pm to Tiguar
quote:I just argued it, baw.
But that's not whats being argued.
quote:Well they can lick my butt hole.
People want to expand assistance and raise minimum wage.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 3:53 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:$15,620.80 a year.
It was $.75 in 1950
In 1955, it was $18,419 a year.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 3:54 pm to FT
I still dont get the "baw" thing 
but I meant in context on a national level.
if anyone tries to ever cut any assistance programs, you know as well as I do the "war on teh p0orz" meme will be parroted by sheep.
need more animal metaphors
but I meant in context on a national level.
if anyone tries to ever cut any assistance programs, you know as well as I do the "war on teh p0orz" meme will be parroted by sheep.
need more animal metaphors
This post was edited on 7/28/14 at 3:55 pm
Posted on 7/28/14 at 3:55 pm to Tiguar
quote:We should anteater.
need more animal metaphors
anteater (verb): the act of creating metaphors involving animals
This post was edited on 7/28/14 at 3:57 pm
Posted on 7/28/14 at 3:56 pm to FT
quote:
It was the equivalent of 9.96 an hour in 1945. Basically $19,123 a year now.
I may be misunderstanding your post then, but when I see this, to me it looks like you are trying to say that the minimum wage in 1945 would be $9.96/hour today or $19,123. Am I not reading this right?
Posted on 7/28/14 at 3:57 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:That is, in fact, accurate.
I may be misunderstanding your post then, but when I see this, to me it looks like you are trying to say that the minimum wage in 1945 would be $9.96/hour today or $19,123.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 3:58 pm to FT
quote:The problem with any argument for "better wages" is the definition of "better". We can arbitrarily jack the min. wage up to $20 an hour, but now other businesses would have to raise their current salaries to be even higher to compete.
This, but I'd like to see as many of those assistance programs disappear as possible. Smaller government overall, bigger government in one area: mandating slightly higher wages. People are paid plenty to live on and if they frick it up (not by getting sick; we should still look after people that really do need it and were working until an illness stopped them), they're on their own.
If I bust my tail all week for $20 an hour at a more specialized position, why wouldn't I quit and work at Burger King for the same amount? All I have to do is flip burgers. But the wage hike in other areas would eventually negate the increased min. wage, since more people are making a lot more than they were before and spending a lot more than they were before. Prices of goods and services would inevitably be raised to match the new demand and those making $20 an hour min. wage would be right back where they started.
I'm against treating the min. wage like a "living wage". I believe it really should be treated as a stepping stone or introductory (to the overall workforce) wage that incentivises employees to work hard, learn more, and develop skills to make them more valuable so that they will increase their worth and their take-home wages. Artificially raising the wage doesn't help people improve their situation in the long-term, and once everything evens out again, those still making that wage will start crying for another hike. It will never end.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 3:59 pm to FT
Well then, the minimum wage in 1945 would be the equivalent of $5.30 today using the CPI inflation index. It was $.40 in 1945.
$1950 it was $.75, but that would be $7.42 today.
$1950 it was $.75, but that would be $7.42 today.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 4:00 pm to FooManChoo
quote:I'm more or less with you. But a higher minimum wage with much fewer government benefits going to them would be only a small increase in what they're getting and with less to fall back on.
I'm against treating the min. wage like a "living wage". I believe it really should be treated as a stepping stone or introductory (to the overall workforce) wage that incentivises employees to work hard, learn more, and develop skills to make them more valuable so that they will increase their worth and their take-home wages. Artificially raising the wage doesn't help people improve their situation in the long-term, and once everything evens out again, those still making that wage will start crying for another hike. It will never end.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 4:03 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Out of college I made 1600 a month (8 bucks an hour) working on a catfish farm. No health insurance I'm in good shape. Housing provided by company which was nice benefit.
I traded my truck in for a new fully loaded gmc z71 and had a 600 month payment including insurance. No cable bill I just had internet and netflix together around 50 bucks month. Basically i had about 250 bucks a week for food, gas, and play after bills.
Yes my housing and utilities were paid but I didn't need a new truck. Someone with the same job minus housing could spend 400 on rent and have a cheaper car
I traded my truck in for a new fully loaded gmc z71 and had a 600 month payment including insurance. No cable bill I just had internet and netflix together around 50 bucks month. Basically i had about 250 bucks a week for food, gas, and play after bills.
Yes my housing and utilities were paid but I didn't need a new truck. Someone with the same job minus housing could spend 400 on rent and have a cheaper car
Posted on 7/28/14 at 4:24 pm to FT
quote:Then I fail to see its merit. There are real economic impacts to raising the minimum wage, as there are to removing those government safety nets. If the goal is to pay people enough money to "get by", then removing those safety nets (lets face it; most people who are trying to live off of min. wage are either living with parents or they are living off of government assistance, or both) would severely hurt their ability to "get by", especially after the effects of the min. wage increase start to level out over time and their purchasing power decreases.
I'm more or less with you. But a higher minimum wage with much fewer government benefits going to them would be only a small increase in what they're getting and with less to fall back on.
If the goal is to incentivize people to move beyond min. wage, then raising it would be counter-productive in the short-term, since (for a while) those making min. wage would be able to "get by" a lot better with their current wages and wouldn't feel the need to aim higher. In the long-term, equilibrium would set in and those making min. wage would be right back where they started before the "incentive" of the wage hike, creating another need to raise the wage again, which would result in the endless cycle we currently find ourselves in as inflation increases over time.
For those who support a smaller government, the only real solution is to move away from government assistance and provide incentives for citizens to help each other (or don't provide incentives, depending on how "small-government" you are), and get the government out of the business of artificially controlling wages. At least, that's how I see it.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 4:26 pm to FooManChoo
Sounds like you're pretty much OK with the status quo, then? (Not an assumption, asking)
Posted on 7/28/14 at 4:31 pm to FT
quote:Actually, no. I'm all in favor of removing the min. wage (or at least leaving it solely up to the states) as well as severely decreasing the amount of assistance programs provided by the government.
Sounds like you're pretty much OK with the status quo, then? (Not an assumption, asking)
Posted on 7/28/14 at 4:40 pm to FooManChoo
quote:NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I'm all in favor of removing the min. wage (or at least leaving it solely up to the states)
quote:I like this part
as well as severely decreasing the amount of assistance programs provided by the government.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 4:50 pm to FT
quote:Not sure what the issue would be for leaving it up to the states. A federally-mandated min. wage just doesn't make sense when you look at the economies of, say, California compared to Mississippi, and the cost of living in both.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Posted on 7/28/14 at 5:01 pm to FT
quote:
Dude, I was at $980 for the month before I even started thinking about food. Your rent is $125 less than mine, but for fricks sake, you straight up can't live on $1000 a month.
bullshite. I spend less than $1000 a month on housing/utilities/gas/auto and health insurance/groceries. I could spend even less if I cut out my internet/cable and downgraded my cell phone plan.
Now, I would have very little left over for luxuries if I actually tried to live on $1000 a month but tough luck. When you don't have disposable income you can't afford luxuries. That's life.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 5:31 pm to Tiguar
quote:
But that's not whats being argued. People want to expand assistance and raise minimum wage.
No crap. What is FT arguing? All that is being said is to raise minimum raise and raise entitlements these days.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News