The working class is getting royally screwed.

Walt said:
In 1974, minimum wage was $2, so he was making 3.125 times minimum wage. Today, minimum wage is $7.25, 3.125 times that is $22.66, and a mechanic can expect to make $25 an hour.

Hmmm... Interesting how that works.

We cannot blame "globalism", because cars are not usually sent overseas to be repaired.
Click to expand...

Mechanics make more than minimum wage, Salty Walty. Always have. It's a skilled trade.
 
Matt Dillon said:
In the first place you used the median income when I was referring to basic income.

Not too many get out of high school and start making.... "$38K" a year, I believe you said it was?

Maybe I wasn't specific enough.

Back in the day, if you were willing to hustle, you could graduate High school and work and make it.

That may be possible today, but there's at least one weeks' worth of income they don't get to keep like people in the past could.

Using the "median income" is folly when working class incomes are conflated with 6 and 7 digit CEO salaries, which is exactly what you did.

Did you look up what the average basic income was in 1982? Hmm?

It was probably about $120-$140/wk. Look up how much minimum wage was then and multiply by 40.

$3.35 was minimum wage in 1982. $134/ wk for 40 hours. Before taxes.

https://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/items/1982-united-states-minimum-wage

A proper comparison would be minimum wage today vs. median rent prices today, factoring in the food prices as well and comparing it to minimum wage then and rent prices and cost of food then.

I can do that, but it's apparent you're more proficient at doing things like that than me. IF you'd like to make an honest comparison in search of the truth, you could.

The bottom line is people just starting out are getting hosed today compared to previous years in America.
Click to expand...

she's just a verbose liar and dissembler, a sophist.

she's in the tank for the murderous banker cabal and will never admit to their poor stewardship of the world.
 
Hello Flash,

Flash said:
Yet, the working class votes more Republican while upper income vote more Democratic or are more evenly divided. I think one reason is because many Democrats (as illustrated by JPP) look down on the white working class without college degrees; especially those from the South. You are not going to attract voters by calling them "deplorables."

I'm not arguing whether or not this is an accurate description, only that it is not going to get their votes.

"...since 2012, nonwhite working class voters have shifted away from the Democrats by 18 margin points, with a particularly sharp shift in the last election and particularly among Hispanics

Data since the 2020 election confirm a pattern of declining Democratic support among the nonwhite working class. Put another way: education polarization, it’s not just for white voters anymore. As a result, Democratic strength among the multiracial working class continues to weaken."

https://theliberalpatriot.substack.com/p/the-democrats-working-class-voter?s=r
Click to expand...

People don't always vote on facts or what is best for them. Many vote emotionally.

The less educated tend to fall for the emotional messaging of the Republican party while actually voting against their own better interest.

That is because the Democratic message is not as motivating as Republican dog-whistle messaging.

The reason that some Hispanics are breaking for Republicans is because they do not see themselves as Hispanics. They are rejecting that label and trying to 'fit in' with the rumor-driven poorly-informed hate-motivated Republican crowd.

Democrats have a stiffer challenge in messaging. They are backing promises of government programs that could produce more results if given a chance. Not very alluring.

Republicans have it easier. All they have to do is imagine new ways to spread hatred of government and institutions such as the news media. As soon as you get people to think the mainstream news is fake you can tell them lies and they will believe it.

Democratic messaging vs Republican messaging is a matter of dull boring facts vs imaginative misinformation that appeals to the hard working but poorly informed.

It's kind of hard to spend all day working hard and also put in enough time to become well informed. It's more fun to have a beer with the buds after work than it is to habitually listen to the real news such as PBS Newshour.

That kind of crowd tends to talk with co-workers and get their information from rumors and peer pressure. A good way to become misinformed.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Flash,



People don't always vote on facts or what is best for them. Many vote emotionally.

The less educated tend to fall for the emotional messaging of the Republican party while actually voting against their own better interest.

That is because the Democratic message is not as motivating as Republican dog-whistle messaging.

The reason that some Hispanics are breaking for Republicans is because they do not see themselves as Hispanics. They are rejecting that label and trying to 'fit in' with the rumor-driven poorly-informed hate-motivated Republican crowd.

Democrats have a stiffer challenge in messaging. They are backing promises of government programs that could produce more results if given a chance. Not very alluring.

Republicans have it easier. All they have to do is imagine new ways to spread hatred of government and institutions such as the news media. As soon as you get people to think the mainstream news is fake you can tell them lies and they will believe it.

Democratic messaging vs Republican messaging is a matter of dull boring facts vs imaginative misinformation that appeals to the hard working but poorly informed.

It's kind of hard to spend all day working hard and also put in enough time to become well informed. It's more fun to have a beer with the buds after work than it is to habitually listen to the real news such as PBS Newshour.

That kind of crowd tends to talk with co-workers and get their information from rumors and peer pressure. A good way to become misinformed.
Click to expand...

but trumpers are voting in our best interests as americans.

only traitors think globalist zealotry is smart.
 
Matt Dillon said:
In the first place you used the median income when I was referring to basic income.
Click to expand...

What do you define as "basic income"?

Using the "median income" is folly when working class incomes are conflated with 6 and 7 digit CEO salaries, which is exactly what you did.
Click to expand...

One thing that's hampering this discussion is innumeracy. I'm using mathematical terms that I assume everyone knows, since I learned them in fourth grade, but apparently not. Six and seven digit CEO salaries don't impact a median. A median isn't an average, that can be altered by the figures at the extremes. It's simply the middle number in a series. Say you have three people and they earn the following per year:

$20,000
$50,000
$100,000

And say you have a second trio who earn:

$20,000
$50,000
$150 million

The median of both groups is $50,000. It simply doesn't matter what that top salary is. All that matters is what the middle of the group is, when calculating the median. The median families I'm talking about are the families that earn more than about 50% of families, and less than the other 50%.

Did you look up what the average basic income was in 1982? Hmm?
Click to expand...

I don't know what "basic income" is. However, I do know what median usual weekly earnings were in 1982. It was about $300. Today, it's $1,001:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LEU0252881500Q

Even after adjusting for inflation, we're up about 16% from 1982. And, again, that's the "median," so those would be the workers who are right in the middle of the pack -- earning more than half and less than the other half.

It was probably about $120-$140/wk. Look up how much minimum wage was then and multiply by 40.
Click to expand...

The problem with that approach is that different shares of people make minimum wage at different times.

In 1982, 12.8% of workers made minimum wage or less. Now it's just 1.5%. So where minimum wage was what much of the working class actually earned back then, now it's just a tiny fraction of the workforce (mostly just the newest arrivals and people with serious employability problems like not speaking English or having a criminal record):

https://www.statista.com/statistics...ly-rates-at-or-below-minimum-wage-since-1979/

That's why even though the real minimum wage was higher in 1982, so were poverty rates, and first-quintile incomes.

So, yes, to your point, if you were a minimum wage worker in 1982, you'd be better off than a minimum wage worker today. But that's because a minimum wage worker today is in the bottom 1.5%, whereas one in 1982, was only in the bottom 12.8%. So, it's basically a comparison between the very most desperate people today and the whole of the lower-middle class in 1982.
 
Mina said:
What do you define as "basic income"?



One thing that's hampering this discussion is innumeracy. I'm using mathematical terms that I assume everyone knows, since I learned them in fourth grade, but apparently not. Six and seven digit CEO salaries don't impact a median. A median isn't an average, that can be altered by the figures at the extremes. It's simply the middle number in a series. Say you have three people and they earn the following per year:

$20,000
$50,000
$100,000

And say you have a second trio who earn:

$20,000
$50,000
$150 million

The median of both groups is $50,000. It simply doesn't matter what that top salary is. All that matters is what the middle of the group is, when calculating the median. The median families I'm talking about are the families that earn more than about 50% of families, and less than the other 50%.



I don't know what "basic income" is. However, I do know what median usual weekly earnings were in 1982. It was about $300. Today, it's $1,001:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LEU0252881500Q

Even after adjusting for inflation, we're up about 16% from 1982. And, again, that's the "median," so those would be the workers who are right in the middle of the pack -- earning more than half and less than the other half.



The problem with that approach is that different shares of people make minimum wage at different times.

In 1982, 12.8% of workers made minimum wage or less. Now it's just 1.5%. So where minimum wage was what much of the working class actually earned back then, now it's just a tiny fraction of the workforce (mostly just the newest arrivals and people with serious employability problems like not speaking English or having a criminal record):

https://www.statista.com/statistics...ly-rates-at-or-below-minimum-wage-since-1979/

That's why even though the real minimum wage was higher in 1982, so were poverty rates, and first-quintile incomes.

So, yes, to your point, if you were a minimum wage worker in 1982, you'd be better off than a minimum wage worker today. But that's because a minimum wage worker today is in the bottom 1.5%, whereas one in 1982, was only in the bottom 12.8%. So, it's basically a comparison between the very most desperate people today and the whole of the lower-middle class in 1982.
Click to expand...

STFU with the trying to lie using numbers thing. You're not fooling anybody with your sophistry, cupcake.

Tell that to young people starting out in America right now that only have one week of disposable income a month when for a century or more almost everybody had 2 weeks' pay a month to save or spend. :rolleyes:

You probably weren't even in your daddy's balls in 1982.

In the late 80s my mentor taught me this:

"One week's work should cover your housing for the month.

Next week's should cover bills and groceries.

Then you have 2 to save or spend, your choice. If you're smart you'll save."

:rolleyes:

People can't do that today because the cost of housing, food, and now fuel is too high, and that's not fair to future Americans.

We should at least leave them the same opportunity level we had. It's not fair to not.

Everybody should be able to get ahead if they're willing to work and use their money wisely in America.

If they can't, The American Dream is dying.

Now those rules still work for me..somehow..but I've been in the game a long time. :dunno:

I guarantee my asset to debt ratio looks a lot better than yours.
 
Last edited:
Matt Dillon said:
STFU with the trying to lie using numbers thing.
Click to expand...

I'm not lying. If there's some number you're disputing, call it out and I'll link to the source where you can confirm for yourself that I'm right.

People can't do that today because the cost of housing, food, and now fuel is too high, and that's not fair to future Americans.
Click to expand...

Yet, as you'll recall from our earlier exchange, people are actually MORE able to do that today that 40 years ago. For a median family, housing costs are lower as a share of income today than they were then, despite houses being much larger. Food is cheaper relative to income today than it was then. The cost per mile for fuel is lower as a share of income now than then.

We should at least leave them the same opportunity level we had
Click to expand...

Yes. That's part of why the Republican tendency to run up huge deficits is such a problem. Although deficits dropped relative to GDP under Carter, Clinton, Obama, and now Biden, they rose so drastically under Reagan, Bush, Bush, and Trump that future generations are going to have a lot of trouble. Worse, we've been exhausting our natural resources -- rushing to burn up all our fossil fuels, for example, so that little is left for future generations. And meanwhile we're driving up global temperatures in a way that will greatly restrict their opportunities.

I guarantee my asset to debt ratio looks a lot better than yours.
Click to expand...

Assuming you're elderly, that may be true. Mine looks pretty damned good, but I haven't had many decades to pad it.
 
Mina said:
What do you define as "basic income"?



One thing that's hampering this discussion is innumeracy. I'm using mathematical terms that I assume everyone knows, since I learned them in fourth grade, but apparently not. Six and seven digit CEO salaries don't impact a median. A median isn't an average, that can be altered by the figures at the extremes. It's simply the middle number in a series. Say you have three people and they earn the following per year:

$20,000
$50,000
$100,000

And say you have a second trio who earn:

$20,000
$50,000
$150 million

The median of both groups is $50,000. It simply doesn't matter what that top salary is. All that matters is what the middle of the group is, when calculating the median. The median families I'm talking about are the families that earn more than about 50% of families, and less than the other 50%.



I don't know what "basic income" is. However, I do know what median usual weekly earnings were in 1982. It was about $300. Today, it's $1,001:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LEU0252881500Q

Even after adjusting for inflation, we're up about 16% from 1982. And, again, that's the "median," so those would be the workers who are right in the middle of the pack -- earning more than half and less than the other half.



The problem with that approach is that different shares of people make minimum wage at different times.

In 1982, 12.8% of workers made minimum wage or less. Now it's just 1.5%. So where minimum wage was what much of the working class actually earned back then, now it's just a tiny fraction of the workforce (mostly just the newest arrivals and people with serious employability problems like not speaking English or having a criminal record):

https://www.statista.com/statistics...ly-rates-at-or-below-minimum-wage-since-1979/

That's why even though the real minimum wage was higher in 1982, so were poverty rates, and first-quintile incomes.

So, yes, to your point, if you were a minimum wage worker in 1982, you'd be better off than a minimum wage worker today. But that's because a minimum wage worker today is in the bottom 1.5%, whereas one in 1982, was only in the bottom 12.8%. So, it's basically a comparison between the very most desperate people today and the whole of the lower-middle class in 1982.
Click to expand...

right. its simply a middle number. meaningless.
 
Mina said:
What do you define as "basic income"?



One thing that's hampering this discussion is innumeracy. I'm using mathematical terms that I assume everyone knows, since I learned them in fourth grade, but apparently not. Six and seven digit CEO salaries don't impact a median. A median isn't an average, that can be altered by the figures at the extremes. It's simply the middle number in a series. Say you have three people and they earn the following per year:

$20,000
$50,000
$100,000

And say you have a second trio who earn:

$20,000
$50,000
$150 million

The median of both groups is $50,000. It simply doesn't matter what that top salary is. All that matters is what the middle of the group is, when calculating the median. The median families I'm talking about are the families that earn more than about 50% of families, and less than the other 50%.



I don't know what "basic income" is. However, I do know what median usual weekly earnings were in 1982. It was about $300. Today, it's $1,001:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LEU0252881500Q

Even after adjusting for inflation, we're up about 16% from 1982. And, again, that's the "median," so those would be the workers who are right in the middle of the pack -- earning more than half and less than the other half.



The problem with that approach is that different shares of people make minimum wage at different times.

In 1982, 12.8% of workers made minimum wage or less. Now it's just 1.5%. So where minimum wage was what much of the working class actually earned back then, now it's just a tiny fraction of the workforce (mostly just the newest arrivals and people with serious employability problems like not speaking English or having a criminal record):

https://www.statista.com/statistics...ly-rates-at-or-below-minimum-wage-since-1979/

That's why even though the real minimum wage was higher in 1982, so were poverty rates, and first-quintile incomes.

So, yes, to your point, if you were a minimum wage worker in 1982, you'd be better off than a minimum wage worker today. But that's because a minimum wage worker today is in the bottom 1.5%, whereas one in 1982, was only in the bottom 12.8%. So, it's basically a comparison between the very most desperate people today and the whole of the lower-middle class in 1982.
Click to expand...

So you're pulling numbers out of your ass and acting like it's fact when I know better and that it's not fact at all.

I'm not feeling too thread-starty today, but this is a topic that needs addressed and there may be something about this in the future.

Your dumbass is defending the cabal of bankers and politicians and elitists that have fucked over the supermajority of Americans. :palm:
 
AssHatZombie said:
purchasing power has gone steadily down for many years.
Click to expand...

Except for TVs. TVs are a lot cheaper.

I have an ad from 1974 for a 20" color TV..it cost $274 or so in 1974.

The percentage of everything else versus money-in-pocket has gone up.

Not TVs, though. Check it out:

QXHBd0Q.jpg



QryQxvy.jpg


100 Remington .22 bullets for $1.37 :eek:

That would be $11.40 now.
 
Last edited:
Mina said:
It's very meaningful. Because of the bell curve, that middle number is a figure that is very close to the income that a sizable portion of the population has.
Click to expand...

The Bell curve is theoretical, I'm talking real life here.

That sizable portion of the population you speak of is in the upper middle class.

I'm talking about those starting out from scratch. With or without a diploma all Americans should be able to make it.

That's something that made America great.

Either way, housing fuel, and food costs take more out of peoples' pockets now than they did for most of the history of this country.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top