Living-wage movement takes root across nation

USA Today ^ | July 23, 2002 | Stephanie Armour

[Sweet_Sunflower29]

Department of Magic

My first chuckle of the day...heehee

[Desdemona]

The lady makes some valid points. Almost these exact thoughts occured to me over lunch. Our standard of living is unbelievably high. After living overseas, even for the short time I did, that became obvious.

Right now, some of us (like me) are at the bottom end of the wage scale for any number of reasons. Personally, I've switched "careers" so many times, I haven't been able to build a salary base. But on the other hand, my real love (and where my best talents lie) is a field that doesn't pay much. Market wise it isn't valuable. That's fine with me, though. I essentially work two jobs - one to pay for the other.

Thank God for clearance racks.

[Baseballguy]

Vouchers for schooling is way different than Wagefare. First of all in my ideal way of what the voucher should be is that all my school tax money does not leave my check. If you make money then that money could be spent on the education you want for your children. Schools then would have to justify there direction and purpose before the kid is enrolled. Busing is the worst thing that happened to the USA and thank God its now dead. Why does the Gov local or fed have to be involved anyway? If as a parent you do not care then you should not complain. Education should be sponsored by businesses thru taxes. They are the ones that need an educated population. They can send money to the schools they deem worthy and parents can send thier kids if they qualify. Freedom is not forced but described but ones wishes.

[parsifal]

"My objection is the issue of fairness," says Tim Dubois, CEO of the Edward Thomas Companies, which owns hotels in the Santa Monica tourist zone. "

BS. His objection is that he might have to lower his own, probably extravagant salary. parsy the seer of truth in things.

[parsifal]

But it is the gov'ts job, and has been for millenia, to set minimum wages beyond which an employer can not cheat the employee. Minwages are a legitimate function of gov't. parsy.

[parsifal]

Oh posh! Socialism? Who do you think is paying the difference in minwages and what it costs to live at present? Go look in the mirror. Its you and me, the taxpayer. An increase to living wages simply puts the burden back where it belongs, the employer. I am far too selfish to wish to continue subsidizing McDonalds and WalMart. parsy the incredibly selfish freeper.

[stands2reason]

OMG. It wasn't an editorial...

[balrog666]

But it is the gov'ts job, and has been for millenia, to set minimum wages beyond which an employer can not cheat the employee. Minwages are a legitimate function of gov't. parsy.

But it is the SOCIALIST gov'ts job, and has been for millenia years, to set minimum wages beyond which an employer can not cheat the employee.

[parsifal]

I thought I had finally converted you in a prior thread.Oh well, a parsy's work is never done. Let me lay some wisdom on you. After WWII, which country do you think had the greatest pay differential between a private and first lieutenant? Russia or the US? parsy the quixotic.

[balrog666]

I thought I had finally converted you in a prior thread.

No, I just hoped you had given up on The Socialist Workers Party.

Military pay? From 55 years ago? Try something a little more relevent.

[reedmelnick]

No one who earns $5.50 an hour is qualified to be a parent. Why should I pay for someone elses kids?

[Red Jones]

it may come as a surprise to you, but the last 30 years the government has regulated portions of the economy directly into the ground and thus destroyed many high paying jobs, the government has entangled our country into trade arrangements which we knew when we made those agreements would result in a lower standard of living for many americans, then we have lots of restrictions on land use that we didn't have, then we have increased immigration that we didn't have. The government is the #1 factor in creating a situation where the real incomes of most americans over the last 30 years have been going down, not up. When you measure wealth according to how much of a 'basket of goods' can be purchased with the salaries people actually make, then the majority of americans are worse off, not better. Under these conditions it is entirely proper for people to look to government and blame them.

[Red Jones]

I read the same exact type of thing in National Review over 15 years ago. If you think that this article represents a liberal bias, then please explain why the same type of thing was in National Review which is the premiere conservative magazine. Responsible economists have simply been noting that it is along term trend since about 1965 for the real standards of living of most americans as measured by their ability to get by with what they make has been going down. Responsible conservatives and responsible liberals should each be concerned. Unfortunately, neither democrats or republicans are willing to even consider the issues.

[mulligan]

We just get dumber and dumber. The nations water supply must be receiving stupid pills manufactured in D.C. by our Congress. This is truly a great country. Happy days are on the way.

[Lizavetta]

The minimum wage has lost 10% of its buying power since it was last raised, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

Duh, I wonder why...could it be that the cost of everything has risen by an equal amount to pay for this and many other government-enacted costs of doing business? Or could it be because the value of everyone's dollar has shrunk due to the government's debasement of our money by the endless printing of more Monopoly money?

[Red Jones]

it should be a major goal of the federal guv to push the unemployment rate down to under 4.0% and keep it there for as long as possible. The reason why it should be our goal is specifically to push wages up for people.

Prior to 1965 we as a nation agreed that this type of low unemployment was good. After 1965 we don't have that agreement as a nation. We haven't matched the low unemployment rates that we used to enjoy either since before 1965. If you look at long-term charts of the unemployment rate, it is really very dramatic. Simply throw out the 1930's and you'll see that prior to 1965 our unemployment rate was on average a solid 25%-30% lower than after 1965.

It is no accident. Republican economists, including Alan Greenspan and others, have been quoted as saying that they have to keep unemployment up over 6% to keep lots of willing workers for big corps. Big corps don't produce jobs, so it doesn't make sense that the republicans would think this way, but they do.

[Red Jones]

we should set the minimum wage to inflation adjusted 1965 levels, and then we should adjust it every year for inflation. This would mean a big increase in minimum wage and republicans would act like it was the end of the world. That is one reason why, despite the pitiful nature of the democrat party, the republicans have so much trouble becoming the majority.

[general_re]

...a parsy's work is never done.

[bert]

American women have swallowed the "I can have it all" lure hook line and sinker. I have several young female aquaintances who are absolutely failing at life. To maintain the image they must hold two jobs, one with the degree and the other as a waitress or at Walmart, to keep the rent paid, the car bought and insured.

They have no time to live and if there is time they are too tired.

I don't argue or rag them, I just observe. Thirty and spinsterhood will come.

[bert]

American women have swallowed the "I can have it all" lure hook line and sinker. I have several young female aquaintances who are absolutely failing at life. To maintain the image they must hold two jobs, one with the degree and the other as a waitress or at Walmart, to keep the rent paid, the car bought and insured.

They have no time to live and if there is time they are too tired.

I don't argue or rag them, I just observe. Thirty and spinsterhood will come.