Federal minimum wage is worth less than in 1968

[Better Believe It]

By Allison Linn, senior business writer
Life Inc. on Today Show
November 19, 2010

If you’re one of the several million Americans earning minimum wage, here's a sobering fact: Your grandpa had more spending power earning minimum wage four decades ago.

Adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage was worth $8.54 per hour in 1968, according to calculations by the Economic Policy Institute. The current minimum wage is $7.25 per hour.

The value of the minimum wage has risen in the last few years, following a three-year government effort to boost the lowest allowable hourly wage in the United States. The final stage, which took effect in July of 2009, brought the minimum wage up nearly 11 percent to its current rate.

In addition, some states have mandated that minimum wage be higher than the national rate.

Still, the data from EPI show that the value of minimum wage has not, in the long-term, kept up with rising inflation, which boosts what things cost and lowers the value of money.

http://lifeinc.todayshow.com/_news/2010/11/19/5495013-good-graph-friday-minimum-wage-is-worth-less-than-in-1968?gt1=43001

[midnight]

1. Love the calculator at the link.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

Would love to know what the minimum wage should be right now to buy groceries, home, healthcare, etc.

[LWolf]

30. Using the calculator at the link, I learned that

I am not making any more today, after 27 years of step and column and cola raises, after thousands invested in extra classes to move me over on the salary schedule, than I was at the beginning of my career.

[bobbolink]

2. Real wages go down + housing costs rise = homelessness

When will there be an interest in solving the crisis?

PLUS, disability payments have not kept pace with rising housing costs, yet when we complain about the loss of the COLA, we are called "whiners".

Can anybody hear us yet?

[dionysus]

4. no one here has called you that.

[laconicsax]

5. "When will there be an interest in solving the crisis?"

When it affects the top 2%.

[bobbolink]

6. Thank you for letting me know our suffering doesn't interest you.

[laconicsax]

9. Oh, FFS!

You've made so many assumptions, it's a wonder you didn't just start letting the accusations fly before I even posted.

[bobbolink]

12. A caring person would have posted in kind... the dimissal you posted was VERY insensitive

and blaming ME adds one more layer.

I suggest doing some soul-searching about how you see other people you consider beneath you.

Given that this is likely to engender more hostility, this is the end of this conversation for me.

Have a good night.

[laconicsax]

14. Yes, I am blaming you for making false assumptions about me.

"When will there be an interest in solving the crisis?"

My answer is, as it was, that our government won't be interested in solving this crisis unless it starts affecting the top 2%.

You can make all the other bullshit assumptions you like about caring and considering people beneath me, but the simple fact is that you assumed that my answer was about me; that it was "I'm in the top 2%, and I don't care because it doesn't affect me." You then used those assumptions to make even more assumptions and draw faulty conclusions.

Well sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm not in the top 2%, I do care, and it does directly affect me.

I suggest taking a nice introspective look at your own prejudices, how they may have led you to make other false assumptions about other people, and the hostility that doing so may have created within you.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

22. Can I join you at facepalming?

[bobbolink]

23. I'm not talking about the GOVERNMENT---I am talking about "progressives"... you know, the ones

who PUSH the government to do what is right.

In my first post, I was stating a tragedy, and asked when it will be important.

The reply I got was a cold dismissal of the tragedy as it is happening.

I responded in kind.

Apparently, it triggered a defensive attitude.

[laconicsax]

32. It's time to admit that you were wrong.

I've already explained what I meant. Your flat refusal not just to acknowledge that you misinterpreted my response, but to insist that your misinterpretation is true is ridiculous and dishonest.

Your question, ""When will there be an interest in solving the crisis?" makes no sense as a question of personal interest since that would require a presumption of zero interest in the problem, something that is demonstrably false.

My answer was not "a cold dismissal of the tragedy as it is happening." It was a statement of fact--that our government will not be interested in solving this problem unless it starts to affect millionaires.

You assumed that I was talking about myself, stating that I don't care, and that I'm a millionaire. I have already corrected you on this and it's time for you to admit that you were wrong.

[bobbolink]

38. As I said, there is no point in talking further. *I* am living this, and *I* am fully aware that

"progressives" just really don't give a damn about poverty.

And, yes, I will keep confronting that. Unless and until all of you start taking poverty seriously, nothing will change.

That is a simple fact, and no, I will not say I am wrong on that. I got a cold response, and I replied in kind. Since you think that it will only change when many others are in my position, then I can extrapolate from that that when YOU (plural you) find yourselves in my situation, then it will "maybe" change.

That is all there is to it.... it will NOT change until all of you take it seriously.

So, have fun ripping on me more.... I'm done with this whole thing because there is no way that so many of you will admit that you have NOT taken poverty seriously... it is all defensive.

So long.... have fun denigrating me. Bye.

[laconicsax]

40. Are you having fun with that broad brush?

There's no question that a lot of "progressives" don't give a shit about poverty. The very fact that there have been threads about solving homelessness and poverty with shipping people off to work camps and using dog crates for housing illustrates that disgusting fact.

It's depressingly ironic that you state that "unless and until all of you start taking poverty seriously, nothing will change" is a simple fact, but regard 'our government won't take poverty seriously unless it affects millionaires and billionaires' as a cold response. Both your statement and my statement are simple statements of fact, but your broad brush is keeping you from realizing that.

Your language clearly indicates that you don't differentiate between people who care about the situation in this country and those who don't. Take just a moment to step back and realize that not everyone is against you. I haven't been ripping on you or denigrating you, but that doesn't really matter since your last two lines show that you haven't been arguing with me but with some imaginary DUer who represents the mass of people who don't care about poverty and homelessness.

[AlabamaLibrul]

16. Stating that people will care about it when it affects the top 2% is stating a FACT.

I understand that you fight for the poor. I get it. For whatever it's worth, I volunteer to help the homeless a lot, especially around this time of year.

But stating a hard, cold, terrible fact is still being honest about the situation. The vast majority, and ESPECIALLY the government, won't care until it hits hard at the top.

[bobbolink]

24. The people here at DU are part of that "vast majority". I am stating a cold hard fact when I say

that all of YOU... all of US, are responsible for what a democracy does.

When I read thread after thread of "priorities" and very seldom is poverty even listed, let alone in some way close to the top of the list, and homelessness itself ... well, I can't remember that being a priority on *any* list.

ALL of us are responsible for THAT. I get it that taking that responsibility isn't popular. I get it that it makes people angry with I point out this fact.

I get it that people want to blame the rich because some of us are homeless.

I get it.

But that doesn't change the fact that NOTHING is going to change unless "progressives" and Democrats, which we on DU are supposed to be, decide that it HAS to change, and start working towards that.

Now, does DU get THAT?

Its really a simple, cold, hard FACT.

[Better Believe It]

25. How do you think we can effectively challenge the ruling rich and their anti-working class policies?

They are causing a growth in poverty within the working class majority.

So I'm with you in opposing those "class war" policies that only benefit the rich.

[maryf]

26. If I may interject a point...

I know what you mean by working class, but the term can feel exclusive to a disabled person, who can't work...what other term can be used when talking about class war I'm not sure... I do know that many unable to work contribute more to society than those who do work, a different word needs to be found, I think...

To get back to your question, we need to demand that people's needs are met, we need to tax those who have more than enough until all are taken care of regarding housing, food, health care, education, and how about the ability to have some time for creative pursuits and recreation?

We need to demand in any way we can...maybe like the French...maybe general strike...

[Better Believe It]

29. Most disabled people, the unemployed, the homeless are working class.

It's a class category and doesn't only describe able bodied workers and it doesn't include the unemployed billionaires who don't need to work or are homeless only when away from their mansions.

Some prefer to say or write "working people" but as you pointed out, we all know who we are talking about.

And it ain't Rupert Murdoch!

:)

[bobbolink]

39. If you would hear my experience one minute, maybe then the point can be driven home.

Over and over and over again, I keep talking about this, and the resistance is huge. I don't know why... if a term used for a group of people is problematic, why wouldn't those who consider themselves "progressives" be willing to change the term, rather than continue to defend it?

Here is the practical result of the insistance of talking about "the working poor", and "the working class".

The ONLY effort to build low-income housing where I am was ONLY FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING.

People like me would be excluded. Because we aren't working, we can continue to be homeless.

NOW can you understand how your insistance on the use of that term continues to DAMAGE us?

That is ONE example... there are others.

If you are not willing to hear, and insist that you are right regardless of how this is affecting those of us who are the most vulnerable, then you have to realize that we will get to the point of fighting back. We will see who our friends are by whether they are willing to hear us or not.

Its really quite simple.

[bobbolink]

37. I have never, ever talked about challenging "the ruling rich". At this point,, that is a losing

proposition.

And I'm not just talking about "the working poor".... I keep repeating that.

What has to happen first is for PROGRESSIVES to take poverty seriously, and be willing to put as much energy into that as into their other causes. THEN, take that awareness to the wider population.

What I am finding is that regular, non-political people are much more open and responsive to hearing about poverty and its causes than those who call themselves "progressive" and "Democrats".

Are you ready to make that commitment?

[Mimosa]

3. " Adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage was worth $8.54 per hour in 1968, "

Yes.

[ProSense]

7. The frightening thing is that it's the highest it has been in more than 20 years n/t

[Omnibus]

10. Not surprising.

This is Reagan's legacy. The middle class was getting a fair shake in this country until St. Ronnie and his plutocrat backers began rolling back the New Deal. Notice how we're merely slowing the bleeding, but the patient's still dying.

[lifesbeautifulmagic]

8. this is something that has always bothered me.

so many repub candidates boast about working their way through college on the minimum wage, like is is some sort of medal of honor. I am thinking specifically about Dino Rossi (three time loser in Washington state) and the Bohner (orange guy from who cares),

In Rossi's case, he just went on and on about being a minimum wage janitor way back in the 60's, and I always wondered why our WA state Dem's never challenged him on that. Adjusted for inflation, he was making more than our minimum wage workers of today. So is he suggesting that we raise the min wage, and if not, why not? Why does he get to receive a living wage and even brag about it, and workers of today have to scrap by, go to food banks, or live in subsidized housing. I wish someone would figure out what Boehners wage would be now vs. what it was back then, and ask him if that means he is for an increase in the min wage, and if not, why not? Is he special or what?

Oh well, Rossi lost, but still. Thanks for this post.

[Hannah Bell]

15. good point. yes, things were a lot easier for college students in the 60s/70s.

a minimal health insurance came with tuition, for starters, when i was in school. you could use student health for free, paying only for prescriptions.

student jobs were abundant, & they were interesting & paid halfway decently.

you could also generally find a summer job that would at least pay a quarter or semester of tuition -- & sometimes much more.

[RainDog]

11. k&r n/t

[Hannah Bell]

13. been worth less since 1969.

[Better Believe It]

17. Check out this CPI wage calculator for different years.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

[katnapped]

18. GOP response: "May as well get rid of it then!" n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. Absolutely true. Here are just a couple of examples:

In 1968, the minimum wage was $1.25.

Quarterly tuition at the University of Minnesota was $125.00 or $375 a year. By working ten hours a week, students could pay their entire tuition bill, and a couple more hours per week would pay for their books and lab fees. If they lived with their parents, that was it for college expenses.

If that were still true, annual tuition for a full-time student would be $2175. Instead, it's about $6,000.

You could buy a pair of jeans at Penney's for $5.00. If you were brand-conscious, you could buy a pair of Levis for $7.00. Both were made in the U.S.

Apartment typically rented for $50 per bedroom. Where can you find an apartment for $290 per bedroom today?

A brand new car cost less than $2000.

Even restaurant meals were cheaper in those days. In 1973, I went to New York and was indignant that the hotel charged $2.80 for breakfast.

That was the same year in which I won a graduate fellowship that paid a stipend of $300 a month. I felt as if I had fallen into the lap of luxury.

[xchrom]

20. Recommend

[Urban Prairie]

21. It is no coincidence that the graph mirrors the political party of the sitting POTUS

each year, steep declines under Nixon/Ford, Reagan-GHWB, and GWB.

[maryf]

27. k&rnt

[B Calm]

28. Only a wing nut would believe the minimum wage is a job killer.

[lib2DaBone]

31. Our Congress has chosen a race to the bottom.. put us in competition with Viet Nam and India...

All the while.. they have voted themselves raises and solid gold health care benefits.

NAFTA gave us the SHAFTA. CONgress is corrupt beyond reason...

[Better Believe It]

33. That's why it's not "our Congress". And we all know who really runs things in Washington. Not us

[B Calm]

36. The republicans screwed us over when they did away with fair trade

tariffs and gave us NAFTA.

[Starry Messenger]

34. The wages in this country are criminally low.

In my world, no one would be making under $100 a day. Even that is barely enough to cover rent, transportation, food, the bare essentials to sustain you to actually work. In a retail job for holiday work you are paid around $6.50 an hour (after taxes) for 8.5 hours of work. You sell hundreds of dollars of merchandise at your register yourself, while you only take home less than $60 for the day. And that's just you. If you work in a store that has 8 registers, you have each rung up hundreds of dollars worth of sales totaling thousands per day for the store. If wages were higher, you could buy some of that stuff too. Instead you get your backpack searched to make sure you aren't indulging in a five fingered discount. You are honest, so you trump home with a meager $60 dollars (not literally since you will have to wait for your check) and eat the little you can afford. And THAT'S IF YOU ARE *LUCKY*, THESE DAYS.

[atvslim2004]

35. minimum wage

thank you for posting this.
it is disgusting isn't it?
the CEO are making what, like 300-400 times the amount as the average American worker.
and I have heard talk on the Rep. side or was it the Tea Party (does not matter, they are the same)
about trying to do away with the Minimum Wage.
it's all greed. the rich just want more and more.
and they want to get rid of food stamps and any kind of help for those low wage earners.
if they paid a decent wage, then there would not be such a need for some programs.
but as it is, the food pantry's and any kind of charity's are scrambling to help as best as they can.
what is the solution to this?
does anyone have any ideas?

[Karmadillo]

41. We better elect a Democratic White House & Congress in 2012 so this will get fixed!!

nt

[kenny blankenship]

42. But it's OK: Reagan came & offered "a sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing"

So people don't miss that money they're not getting. If you're one of those who is just mentally stuck on the math of 40 years of wage regression, remember that it's only been 30 years since Reagan's dynamism and entrepreneurship was injected into the US economy. It's ONLY BEEN 30 YEARS, PEOPLE. Give it a chance to work. It's not like the Invisible Hand has a magic wand, you know?

[mdmc]

43. ..