Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I keep seeing the argument that minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage. So I researched it some. I've come to the decision that they are in fact wrong. In fact it was meant to be more then poverty wages....at a time when only one person was working in a family!
“No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country”
FDR
So I was worried...what if it was out of context? So I found what it was part of, heres a more complete qoute:
"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."
$1.60 in 1968 had the same buying power as $10.77, today.
Federal law allows employers to pay $4.25/hr. to employees who are under the age of 20 during the first 90 days of employment. State laws may or may not recognize this exception.
Stop repeating that lie. Only SOME things went up ten fold, not nearly everything. Are you trying to say you could get a pair of Levi jeans in 1968 for $2.50? A gallon of milk was ~$1.40 back then, is it over $10 now? Rent is now ~1k a month for an apartment, was it only $100 a month in 1968?
Stop repeating that lie. Only SOME things went up ten fold, not nearly everything. Are you trying to say you could get a pair of Levi jeans in 1968 for $2.50? A gallon of milk was ~$1.40 back then, is it over $10 now? Rent is now ~1k a month for an apartment, was it only $100 a month in 1968?
The internet says you could have gotten a pair of jeans for less than $6 in 1968.
The internet says you could have gotten a pair of jeans for less than $6 in 1968.
And you can get a pair for $14 at costco today so I guess minimum wage should be $3.73 / hour today.
You claim the minimum wage should be a "living wage" because that's what it was in 1937. I'm sure todays minimum wage would be a "living wage" with 1937 creature comforts. No cell phone, no computer, no internet, no cable TV, no flat screen, no Xbox, no fast food, 90% of rural households didn't have electricity in 1937 so no electricity, no $100 sneakers. If someone was making minimum wage and didn't spend money on all of those things and rented a room in a house, and didn't have kids he/she couldn't support they'd have a "livable wage". It would cover room and board.
$1.60 in 1968 had the same buying power as $10.77, today.
Federal law allows employers to pay $4.25/hr. to employees who are under the age of 20 during the first 90 days of employment. State laws may or may not recognize this exception.
The way of measuring inflation has been changed several times over the course of the past 40 years.
It's not apples to apples as you are doing anymore.
And you can get a pair for $14 at costco today so I guess minimum wage should be $3.73 / hour today.
You claim the minimum wage should be a "living wage" because that's what it was in 1937. I'm sure todays minimum wage would be a "living wage" with 1937 creature comforts. No cell phone, no computer, no internet, no cable TV, no flat screen, no Xbox, no fast food, 90% of rural households didn't have electricity in 1937 so no electricity, no $100 sneakers. If someone was making minimum wage and didn't spend money on all of those things and rented a room in a house, and didn't have kids he/she couldn't support they'd have a "livable wage". It would cover room and board.
I keep seeing the argument that minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage. So I researched it some. I've come to the decision that they are in fact wrong. In fact it was meant to be more then poverty wages....at a time when only one person was working in a family!
“No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country”
FDR
So I was worried...what if it was out of context? So I found what it was part of, heres a more complete qoute:
"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."
FDR was talking about the wages skilled workers were being paid, not unskilled 14 year old school kids.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
